ATUL SHARMA Vs. GURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala, declining the application of the sons of Ram Sarup for being impleaded as parties to the suit.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 claimed specific performance of the agreement of sale entered between him and Ram Sarup, Mehar Chand and others. The petitioners alleging that the property, subject-matter of the agreement, was coparcenary property and as such Ram Sarup was not competent to sell it except for legal necessity or the benefit of the estate, contended that the specific performance of the agreement could not be ordered. The application was declined relying on a decision of the Madras High Court t in N. T. Palanisamy Chettiar v. Komara Chettiar, AIR 1950 Mad 91 and some observations in a decision of this Court in Banarsi Dass Durga Prasad v. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal, AIR 1969 Punj & Har 57. In Banarsi Dass's case (supra) the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale against Smt. Chameli. Panna Lal and Banawari Lal instituted another suit for an injunction restraining her from interfering with their possession and in the alternative for possession of a chabutra 41/2 square feet. Banarsi Dass alleging that the said chabutra was part of the property, subject-matter of the suit, moved an application for being impleaded as party to the second suit. His prayer was declined by the trial Court and its order was confirmed in revision by R. S. Sarkaria, J. (as he then was) with the following observations (at p. 59):--

(3.) In N. T. Palanisamy Chettiar's case (AIR 1950 Mad 91) (supra) Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. allowed the revision and rejected a similar application holding thus: -