RAJ SINGH Vs. RAM NIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against an order of the trial court refusing to strike out the name of the defendant No. 7 from the array of parties.

(2.) THE suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract of sale of an agricultural land. The contract was, according to the plaintiff, between him and Smt. Onkari. Smt. Onkari had agreed to transfer, her one-third share in the agricultural land and had taken an earnest money also in respect of the same. Defendant No. 7 obtained a decree against Smt. Onkari and in execution of that decree, during the pendency of the present suit, purchased her share in this very property at an auction-sale. As the defendant No. 7 acquired title in respect of this property, the plaintiff applied for impleading him as a defendant and he was impleaded as defendant No. 7. Defendant No. 7 then applied for striking out his name.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel that he is not a necessary party in view of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act because he is a bona fide transferee for value without notice. This question has to be decided on evidence in the suit itself and not in an application under. Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C.