K P RAJENDRAN Vs. N R NACHIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 7 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode, are the revision Petitioners.

(2.) The suit was filed by the revision Petitioners for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Respondents 1 and 2 on 16.07.2003 and for injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the third Respondent was impleaded as third Defendant and the suit was dismissed for default on 17.04.2008 and before the restoration of the suit, on 14.07.2008, the Respondents 3 and 4 colluded and sold the property to the fourth Respondent and therefore, the revision Petitioners filed an application to implead the fourth Respondent, who is the subsequent purchaser, as one of the Defendants in that suit. That petition was dismissed by the Lower Court and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioners submitted that admittedly, the fourth Respondent purchased the property, during the pendency of the suit and she purchased the property from the Defendants and therefore, she is a necessary party to the proceedings and hence, she has to be impleaded as one of the parties, so as to get a binding decree against all persons having interest in the suit property. The learned Counsel also relied upon Section 19 of (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act") and submitted that any other person claiming under parties to the suit by a title arising subsequently to the contract are bound by the decree and the specific performance of a contract may be enforced against them and therefore, the fourth Respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgments, in the matter of (Sumtibai and Ors. v. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar, etc. and Ors., 2007 4 LW 865), in the matter of (M.P. Kanoi and four Ors. v. Mr. Palani Prop. M.P. Builders,2001 3 CTC 452), in the matter of (H. Rahamathulla v. R. Murugaiyan and Anr., 2010 2 CTC 275) and, in the matter of (V. Ravimenon v. R. Ebinessar, 2009 1 CTC 775).