PANNE KHUSHALI Vs. JEEWANLAL MATHOO KHATIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 filed suit (No. 56-A/ 69) in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior for the specific performance of a contract, contending that the non-applicant No. 2 had entered into an agreement with him for the sale of the contracted! house to turn, but has failed to complete the sale and prayed for a decree directing the non-applicant No. 2 to complete the sale by executing and setting registered a sale-deed in his favour. The intervener applicants made an application for being joined as a party to the suit contending that the suit property is a coparcenery property and they as coparceners are the co-owners of it; the non- applicant No. 2 had neither a right to enter into an agreement for sale, nor has a right to sell it, nor any such act of his can bind their shares in it.

(2.) The trial Court rejected the application, holding that the applicants cannot be added as parties to the suit against which the present revision was filed in this Court. In view of the apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court in, Roopkishore v Tarabai, Civil Revn. No. 473 of 1967, decided on March 3, 1970 =' (1970 MPWR (SN) 132). by Krishnan. J. and in Gananandrao v. Babulal. Civil Revn. No. 351 of 1967. decided on May 3, 1968 = (1970 MPWR (SN) 69). by Bhar-gava, J., Shiv Dayal, J. (as he then was --now Chief Justice) before whom the revision came up for hearing, referred the matter for decision by a larger Bench. The matter was referred to the Division Bench (of which myself was also the Member) which also referred the matter for decision by a larger Bench and hence. the matter has come up before the Full Bench,

(3.) In view of the controversy involved, the question for decision by this Bench is formulated thus :