ALAGAR Vs. SAKTHIVEL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the decree-holder by order dated 17.07.2007, passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul in I.A. No. 55 of 2007 in O.S. No. 274 of 2004 seeking to impaled the civil revision Petitioner as the fifth Defendant in the suit on the ground that he had entered into a sale agreement with the second Respondent on 22.12.1997, by paying an amount of Rs. 24,000/-and Rs. 23,000/-towards advance for Plot Nos. 5 and 6. Subsequent to the above transaction, the revision Petitioner was put in possession of the land, for which, the suit was filed for specific performance.

(2.) It was further contended by the revision Petitioner that the Petitioner after paying the above mentioned amounts towards the cost of plot Nos. 5 and 6 has also constructed a house in the said property, therefore, the Petitioner should be impleaded as one of the necessary parties in the suit filed by the Plaintiff, namely, the first Respondent herein. It was also further contended that for any reason, the suit for specific performance decree in favor of the Plaintiff, who is arrayed as a first Respondent herein and in order to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, it is fair and just to implead the Petitioner as fifth Defendant in the pending suit for specific performance. On that basis, he prayed for allowing the impalement application by setting aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/first Respondent, submitted that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant in pursuant to the agreement dated 28.06.1999. As per the agreement, the first Defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff/first Respondent herein on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards the suit land. Subsequent to the agreement dated 28.06.1999, out of Rs. 1,00,000/-the Plaintiff/first Respondent herein admittedly paid Rs. 40,000/-and only when the Plaintiff was about to make a balance of Rs. 60,000/-, the first Defendant in the suit evaded from receiving the above said amount; as a result, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance of the contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Therefore, it was contended that except as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, no one else can claim any right in a suit property. The revision Petitioner is only an agreement holder even according to him and without imp leading the third party before the civil Court, the Petitioner can mark his sale agreement without imp leading the subsequent purchaser.