Holding

A stranger to the contract who claims independent title is neither a necessary nor a proper party and cannot be added as a defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale.

Summary

Kasturi filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale against the vendor (respondents Nos.2 and 3). Respondents Nos.1 and 4‑11, who were not parties to the contract but claimed independent title and possession of the property, applied to be impleaded as defendants. The trial court and the Madras High Court allowed their addition. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC and Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, a stranger to the contract who does not claim under the vendor is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Adding such a party would convert a specific‑performance suit into a title suit, which is impermissible. Consequently, the lower courts acted without jurisdiction, their orders were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a stranger to a contract for sale, claiming independent title and possession, can be added as a defendant in a suit for specific performance under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
Whether such a stranger qualifies as a necessary or proper party under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act and the CPC.
Whether the addition of the stranger would improperly expand the scope of the suit from specific performance to a title suit.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order I Rule 10 (sub‑rule 2)
Specific Relief Acts. 19

Subjects

specific performanceaddition of partiesnecessary partyproper partycontract for saleCPC Order I Rule 10Specific Relief Act Section 19stranger to contracttitle suitjurisdiction

Judgment

A KASTURI
v.
IVY AMPERUMAL AND ORS.

APRIL 25, ·2005

B [N. SANTOSH HEGDE, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]
-- I
Specific ReliefAct; Section 19/Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908; 0. IR. JO:
Suit for specific performance ofcontract for sale ofa property filed by Vendee
l
c against Vendor-Filing of an application by respondent Nos. I, 4 to I/- ~

Stranger to the contract claiming independent title and possession over the
suit property to join as parties-defendants-Allowed by trial Court-Affirmed
by High Court -On appeal, Held: In equity as well as in law, the contract
constitutes rights and also regulates liabilities of the parties-In order to be
D a necessary party there must exist a right to relief in respect ofthe controversies
involved in the proceedings and no effective order could be passed in the
absence. of such party-Respondents had no direct interest-Effective decree
could he passed in ·their absence since the property in question was not
purchased by them from the vendor after the contract was entered int~ln a
suit for specific performance plaintiff could not be forced to add parties io
E whom he does not want to fight-Thus, Respondents/strangers to the contract
are neither proper parties nor necessary party-defendants in the .suit-The
Courts below acted illegally and without jurisdiction in allowing the app/icatiOn
for addition of parties in the suit.

Proceedings under the provisions of Specific Relief Act-Addition of
F parties/stranger to the contract-Effect of-Held: Scope ofthe suit for specific
performance would be. enlarged by such addition-Jn terms of sub-rule (2)
Order I Rule I 0, the coµrt cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so
as to convert a suit for specific performance. of contract of sale into a
complicated suit for title between the parties.
G
Necessary parties/proper parties-Meaning of
~
The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to ..,,
whether in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property '.
initiated by a vendee against the vendor, a stranger/third party to the
H 864
KASTURI v. IYY AMPERUMAL 865
contract claiming to have an independent title and possession over the A
contracted property, is entitled to be added as a party defendant in the
suit.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court as well as the trial Court had acted B
illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction in allowing the application of
the respondents for their addition as defendants in the suit. (870-C)
2.1. The provision under second part of Order I Rule IO sub-rule
(2) of the CPC clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific
performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they C
are dead their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased
the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the
contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties.
A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had
purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims
adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. D
(871-G-H; 872-A)

2.2. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act provides relief against
parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title. The Section
is exhaustive on the question as to who ar~ the parties against whom a
contract for specific performance may be enforced. (872-C; 873-A) E
2.3. For deciding the question who is a proper party in a suit for
specific performance the guiding principle is that the presence of such a
party is necessary to adjudicate the controversies involved in the suit for
specific performance of the contract for sale. Thus, the question is to be
decided keeping in mind the scope of the suit. The question that is to be F
decided in such a suit is to the enforceability of the contract entered into
between the parties to the contract. If the person seeking addition is added
in such a suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be
enlarged and it would be practically converted into a suit for title.
Therefore, for effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the G
suit, presence of such parties cannot be said to be necessary at all.
(873-A-B-C-DI

Tasker v. Small, 1834 (40) English Report 848 (1886) 2 Ch. 164,
referred to.

2.4. The necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some
relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved· in the
proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the Court
would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely
to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although
B no relief in the suit was claimed against such person. The respondent Nos.I
and 4 to 11 are not necessary parties as effective decree could be passed
in their absence as they had not purchased the contracted property from .
the vendor after the contract was entered into. They were also not
necessary parties as they would not be affected by the contract entered
into between the appellant anrf the respondent Nos.2 and 3. (874-C-D-E)
c Anil Kumar S!ngh v. Shivnath Mishra Alias Gaaasa Guru, 11995) 3 SCC
147, relied on.

2.5. Respondent Nos.I and 4 to 11 did not seek their addition in the
suit on the strength of the contract in respect of which the suit for specific
D performance of the contract for sale has been filed; they based their claim
on independent title and possession of the contracted property. It is,
therefore, obvious that in the event, respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are added
or impleaded in the suit, th.e scope of the suit for specific performance of
the contract for sale shall be enlarged from the suit for specific
performance to a suit for title and possession which is not permissible in
E law. (875-C-D)

Vijay Pratap and Ors. v. Sambhu Saran Sinha and Ors., (1996) 10 SCC,
53, relied on.

. 3. A third party or a .stranger to the contract cannot be added so as
F to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character. In the
event any decree is passed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and in favour
of the appellant for specific performance of the contract for sale in respect
of the contracted property, the decree that would be passed in the said
suit, obviously, cannot bind the respondent Nos.I and 4 to 11, and in that
G case, they would be at liberty either to obstruct execution in order to
protect their possession by taking recourse to the relevant provisions of
the CPC, if they are available to them, or to file an independent sliit for
declaration of title and possession against the appellant or respondent No.3.
On the other hand, if the decree is passed in favour of the appellant and
sale deed is executed, the stranger to the contract, respondent Nos.I and
H. 4 to 11, have to be sued for taking possession if they are in possession of
KASTURI v. IVY AMPERUMAL 867
the decretal property. (875-F-G-H; 876-A-B) A
4.1. In terms of sub-rule (2) Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC it is clear
that the legislature clearly meant that the controversies raised as between
the parties to the litigation must be gone into only, that is to say,
controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed
on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may B
arise between the plaintiff/appellant and the defendants inter se or
questions between the parties to the suit and a third party. Thus, the Court
cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for
specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit for title
between the plaintiff/appellant on one hand and respondent Nos. 2 & 3
and respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 on the other. This addition, if allowed, C
· would lead to a complicated litigation by which the trial and decision of
serious questions which are totally outside the scope of the suit would have
to be gone into. (876-C-D-E)
Amo/ v. Rasheed Tuck and Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All Eng. Reporter, 273,
referred to. D
4.2. The appellant, who has filed the instant suit for specific
performance of the contract for sale is dominus litus and cannot be forced
to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless it is a
compulsion of the rule of law. For these reasons, respondent Nos. 1 and 4
to 11 are neither necessary parties nor proper parties and therefore they E
are not entitled to be added as party-defendants in the pending suit for
specific performance of the contract for sale. (877-C-D)
5.1. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of a
contract for sale the lis between the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and
3 shall only be gone into and it is also not open to the Court to decide F
whether respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 have acquired any title and
possession of the contracted property as that would not be germane for
decision in the suit for specific performance of the contract for- sale.
(877-G-H; 878-A)

5.2. The two tests by which a person who is seeking addition in a
G
pending suit for specific performance of the contract for sale must be
, satisfied are - (i) there must be a right to the same relief against a party
relating to the same subject-matter involved in the proceedings for specific
performance of contract for sale, and (ii) it would not be possible for the
Court to pass effective decree or order in the absence of such a party. H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A Applying these two tests in the facts and circumstances of the present ca~e,
it would be evident that the respondent Nos.I and 4 to 11 cannot satisfy
the above two tests for determining the question whether a stranger/third
party is entitled to be added under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC only on
the ground that if the decree for specific performance of the contract for
B sale is passed in absence of respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11, their possession
over the contracted property can be disturbed or they can be dispossessed
from the contracted property in execution of the decree for specific
performance of the contract for sale obtained by the appellant against
respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, it was not open to the High Court or the
trial court to join other cause-of action iit the instant suit for specific
C performance of the contract for sale, and therefore, the two Courts below
acted illegally and· without jurisdiction in aliowlng the application for
addition of parties in the pending suit for specific performance of contract
for sale filed at the instance of respondent Nos. l aitd 4 to 11.
· [878-D-E-F-GJ
D 5.3. It is open to the Court to interfere with the order if it is held
that two courts below had acted without jurisdiction. or acted illegally and
with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in the· matter
of allowing the application for addition.ofparties filed.under Order 1 Rule
10 of the CPC. The .question of jurisdiction of the Court to invoke Order
1 Rule 10 of the CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit
E by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has
direct interest in the controversy involved in the suit. [879-B-CJ
5.4. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 had no direct interest in the ·
suit for specific performance because they are not parties to the contract
nor do they claim any interest from the parties to the litigation. One more
F aspect may be considered in this connection. It is that the jurisdictiOn of
the court to add an applicant shall arise only when the Court finds that
such applicant is either a necessary party or a proper pa_rty. It can not" be
said that this Court cannot set aside the impugned orders of the Courts
below on the ground that jurisdiction to invoke power under Order 1 Rule
G 10 of the CPC has already been exercised by the two courts below in favour
of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11. For the reasons aforesaid, "the
stranger to the contract, namely, respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 making
claim independent and adverse to the title of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are
neither necessary nor proper parties, and therefore, not entitled to join
as party defendants in the suit for specific performance of contract for
H sale. (879-C-D; 879-G-H; 880-AJ
KASTURI v. IYYAMPERUMAL [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] 869

6. It is clarified that this Court has not decided in this judgment and A
questions as to the title and possession of respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11
of the suit property and all such questions are kept open in the event any
approach is made either by the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 or by the
appellant in any appropriate Court. 1880-CI

Ramesh Hirachand Kundanma/ v. Municipal Corporation of Greater B'
Bombay and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 524, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 283 I of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated IO.I0.2002 of the Madras High
Court in C.R.P. No. I818 of 2001. C
Siddhartha Dave, Senthil Jagadeesan and V. Ramasubramanian for the
Appellant.

Raju Ramachandran, U.A. Rana, Madhup Singhal, for Mis. Gagrat &
Co. with him for the Respondents. D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

T ARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.

The only question that needs to be decided in this case is whether in E
a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property instituted by
a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract,
claiming to have an independent title and possession over the contracteJ
property, is entitled to be added as a party/defendant in the said suit.

F
2. Before we take up this question for decision in detail, the material
facts leading to the filing of this case may be narrated at a short compass. The
appellant herein has filed the suit against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for
specific performance of a contract entered into between the second respondent
acting as a Power of Attorney of the third respondent on one hand and the
appellant on the other for sale of the contracted property. In this suit for
G,
specific performance of the contract for sale, the respondent Nos. I and 4 to
I I, who were admittedly not parties to the contract and setting up a claim of
independent title and possession over the contracted property, filed an
application to get themselves added in the suit as defendants. The trial court
allowed the application on the ground that as the respondent Nos. I and 4 to H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A 11 were claiming title and possession of the contracted property, they must
be held to have a direct interest in the subject·matter of the suit, and therefore,
entitled to be added as parties defendants in the suit as their presence would
be necessary to decide the controversies raised in the present suit. The High
Court in revision confirmed the said order and accordingly against the aforesaid
B order of the High Court this Special Leave Petition was filed at the instance
of the appellant which on grant of special leave was taken up for hearing in
presence of the parties.

3. In order to decide the question, as framed hereinearlier, it is necessary
to consider the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short
C the CPC) under which the Court is empowered to add a party in the suit.
However, our answer to the question framed, as raised by the learned counsel
for the parties, is that the High Court as wen· as the trial court had acted
illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction in allowing the application of the
respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 for their addition as defendants in the suit.
There are certain special statutes which clearly provide as to who are the
D persons to be made as parties in the proceeding/suit filed under that special
statute. Let us take the example of the provisions made under the
Representation of People Act. Section 82 of the aforesaid Act clearly provides
who are the persons to be made parties in Election Petitions. There are other
special statutes which also postulate who can be joined as parties in the
E proceedings instituted under that special statute, otherwise the provisions of
. the CPC should be applicable. So far as addition of parties under the CPC is
concerned, we find that such power of addition of parties emanates from
Order I Rule I 0 of the CPC. As we are concerned in the instant case with
order I .Rule I 0 of the CPC, we do not find .it necessary to refer to other
provisions of the CPC excepting Order I Rule 10 of the CPC whic~ reads as
Funder:

Rule 10.(1) "Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the
wrong persons as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been
instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any
stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through ·
G a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of
the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be
substituted or added as. plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks ·
just.

(2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or
H without the application of either party, and on such terms as may
KASTURI v. IYYAMPERUMAL [TARUNCHATTERJEE, J.) 871

appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party A
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out,
and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined,
whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court
may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in B
the suit, be added.

(3) ................................................... .

(4) ................................................... .

(5)...................................................." (Omitted since not necessary) C
4. In deciding whether a stranger or a third party to the contract is
entitled to be added in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale as
a defendant, it is not necessary for us to delve in depth into the scope of
Order I Ruic IO sub-rule (I) of the CPC under which only the addition of
a plaintiff in the suit may be directed. D
5. Let us therefore confine ourselves to the provision of Order I Rule
IO sub-rule (2) of CPC which has already been quoted hereinabove. From a
bare perusal of sub-rule (2) of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, we find that
power has been conferred on the Court to strike out the name of any party
improperly joined whether all plairitiff or defendant and also when the name E
of any person ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or in a case
where a person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order
to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle
all the questions involved in the suit. In the present case, since we are not
concerned with striking out the name of any plaintiff or defendant who has F
been improperly joined in the suit, we will therefore only consider whether
the second part of sub-rule(2) Order I Rule IO of the CPC empowers the
Court to add a person who ought to have been joined or whose presence
before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually
and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the
suit. G
.... 6. In-our view, a bare reading of this provision namely, second part of
Order I Rule 10 sub-rule (2) of the CPC would clearly show that the necessary
parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties
to the contract or if they are dead their legal representatives as also a person
who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. bl equity as H
••
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A well as in law, the contract constitut~s rights and also regulates the liabilities
of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he'
had purchased with without notice of the· contract, but a person who claims
adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. Fro.m
the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for detennining the
B question who is a necessary party. Tests are - (1) there must be a right to
some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the
proceedings (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such
party.

7. We may look to this problem from another angle. Section 19 of the
C Specific Relief Act provides relief against parties and persons claiming under
them by subsequent title. Except as otherwise provided by Chapter II, specific
perfonnance of a contract may be enforced against :-

(a) either party thereto;
(b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently
D to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his
money in good faith and without notice of the original contract;
(c) any person claiming under a title which, though prior to the
contract and known to the plaintiff, might have been displaced by
the defendant;
E
(d) when a company has entered into a contract and subsequently
becomes amalgamated with another company, the new company
which arises out of the amalgamation; .
(e) when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation,
entered into a contract for the purpose of the company and such
F
contract is warranted by the terms of the incorporation, the
company;
Provided that the company has accepted the contract and
communicated such acceptance to the other party to the contract.
G 8. We have carefully considered sub-sections (a) to (e) of Section 19
of the Act. From a careful examination of the aforesaid provisions of sub-
sections (a) to (e) of the Specific Relief Act we are of the view that the ..
persons seeking addition in the suit for specific performance of the contract '
for sale who were not claiming under the vendor but they were claiming
H adverse to thP. title of the vendor do not fall in any of the categories enumerated

•
KASTURI v. IYY AMPERUMAL [TAR UN CHATTERJEE, .I.] 873
in sub-sections (a) to (e) of section 19 of the Specific Relief Act. A
9. That apart, from a plain reading of section 19 of the Act we are also
of the view that this section is exhaustive on the question as to who are the
parties against whom a contract for specific performance may be enforced.

IO. As noted hereinearlier, two tests are required to be satisfied to B
determine the question who is a necessary party, let us now consider who is
a proper party in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. For
deciding the question who is a proper party in a suit for specific performance
the guiding principle is that the presence of such a party is necessary to
adjudicate the controversies involved in the suit for specific performance of C
the contract for sale. Thus, the question is to be decided keeping in mind the
scope of the suit. The question that is to be decided in a suit for specific
performance of the contract for sale is to the enforceability of the contract
entered into between the parties to the contract. If the person seeking addition
is added in such a suit, the scope of the suit for pecific performance would
be"enlarged and it would be practically converted into a suit for title. Therefore, D
for effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the suit, presence
of such parties cannot be said to be necessary at all. Lord Chancellor
Cottenham in Tasker v. Small, (1834) 40 English Report 848 made the
following observations :

"It is not disputed that, generally, to a bill for a specific E
performance of a contract for sale, the parties to the contract only
are the proper parties; and, when the ground of the jurisdiction of
Courts of Equity in suits of that kind is considered it could not properly
be otherwise. The Court assumes jurisdiction in such cases, because
a Court of law, giving damages only for the non-perfonnance of the
contract, in many cases does not afford an adequate remedy. But, in
F
equity, as well as in law, the contract constitutes the right and regulates
the liabilities of the parties; and the object of both proceedings is to
place the party complaining as nearly as possible in the same situation
as the defendant had agreed ihat he should be placed in. It is obvious'
that persons, strangers to the contract, and, therefore, neither entitled G
to the right, nor subject to the liabilities which arise out of it, are as
much strangers to a proceeding to enforce the execution of it as they
are to a proceeding to recover damages for the breach of it. "

(Emphasis supplied 1
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2005] 3 S.C.R.

A I I. The aforesaid decision in 40 E.R. 848 was noted with approval in
(1886) 2 Ch. 164 (De Hogton v. Money) at page 170 Turner, L.J. ob~erved:

"Here again his case is met by (1834) 40 E.R. 848 in which case it
·was distinctly laid down that a purchaser cannot, before his contract
is carried into effect, enforce against strangers to the contract equities
B attaching to the property, a rule which, as it seems to me, is well
founded in principle, for if it were otherwise, this Court might be
called upon to adjudicate upon questions which might never arise, as
it might appear that the contract either ought not to be, or could not
be performed."

C 12. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties
are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or
that there must be a right to some relief against some paup+ I Xrty in respect of the
controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose
presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court
D effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
ipvolved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such
person.

13. Keeping the principles as stated above in mind, let us now, on the
admitted facts of this case, first consider whether the respondent Nos. I and
E 4 to I I are necessary parties or not. In our .opinion, the respondent Nos.I and
4 to II are not necessary parties as effective decree could be passed in their
absence as they had not purchased the contracted property from the vendor
after the contract was entered into. They were also not necessary parties as
they would not be affected by the contract entered into between the appellant
and the respondentNos.2 and 3. In the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath
F Mishra Alias Gadasa Guru, reported in [1995] 3 SCC 147, it has been held
that £ince the applicant who sought for his addition is not a party to the
agreement for sale, it cannot be said that in his absence, the dispute as to
JPecific performance cannot be decided. In this case at paragraph 9, the
Supreme Court while deciding whether a person is a necessary party or not
G in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale made the following
observation :

"Since the respondent -is not a party to the agreement of sale, it
cannot be said that without his presence the dispute as to specific
performance cannot be detetmined Therefore, he is not a necessalJ'
H ~arty. " [Emphasis supplied]
KASTURI v. IYY AMPERUMAL [TAR UN CHATTERJEE, J.] 875

14. As discussed hereinearlier, whether respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 A
were proper parties or not, the governing principle for deciding the question
would be that the presence of respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 before the Court
would be necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon
and settle all the questions involved in the suit. As noted hereinearlier, in a
suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be decided B
is the enforceability of the contract entered into between the appellant and
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whether contract was executed by the appellant
and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for sale of the contracted property, whether
the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and
whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for. specific performance of a
contract for sale against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is an admitted position C
that the respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 did not seek their addition in the suit
on the strength of the contract in respect of which the suit for specific
perfonnance of the contract for sale has been filed. Admittedly, they based
their claim on independent title and possession of the contracted property. It
is, therefore, obvious as noted hereinearlier that in the event, the respondent D
Nos. I and 4 to I I are added or impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit
for specific performance of the contract for sale shall be enlarged from the
suit for specific performance to a suit for title and possession which is not
permissible in law. In the case of Vijay Pratap and Ors. v. Sambhu Saran
Sinha and Ors., reported in [I996J IO SCC, 53, this Court had taken the same
view which is being taken by us in this judgment as discussed above. This E
Court in that decision clearly held that to decide the right, title and interest
in the suit property of the stranger to the contract is beyond the scope of the
suit for specific performance of the contract and the same cannot be turned
into a regular· title suit. Therefore, in our view, a third party or a stranger to
the contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a
suit of different character. As discussed above, in the event any decree is F
passed against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and in favour of the appellant for
specific perfonnance of the contract for sale in respect of the contracted
property, the decree that would be passed in the said suit, obviously, cannot
bind the respondent Nos. I and 4 to I I. It may also be observed that in the
event, the appellant obtains a decree for specific performance of the contracted G
property against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, then, the Court shall direct
execution of deed of sale in favour of the appellant in the event respondent
Nos.2 and 3 refusing to execute the deed of sale and to obtain possession of
the contracted property he has to put the decree in execution. As noted
hereinearlier, since the respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 were not parties in the
H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 3 S.C.R.

A suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of the contracted property,
a decree passed in such a suit shall not bind them .and in that case, the
respondent Nos. I and 4 to I I would be at liberty either to obstruct execution
in order to protect their possession by taking recourse to the relevant provisions
of the CPC, if they are available to them, or to file an independent suit for
B declaration of title and possession against the appellant or respondent No.3.
On the other hand, if the decree is passed in favour of the appellant and sale.
deed is executed, the stranger to the contract being the respondent Nos. I and
4 to 11 have to be sued for taking possession if they are in possession of the
decretal property.

C 15. That apart, from a plain reading of the expression used in sub-rule
(2) Order I Rule IO of the CPC "all the questions involved in the suit" it is
abundantly clear that the legislature clearly mearit that the controversies raised
as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into only, that is to say,
controversies with regard to· the right which is set up and the relief claimed
on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may
D arise between the plaintiff/appellant and the defendants inter se or questions
between the parties to the suit and a third party. In our view, therefore, the
court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit
for specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit for title
between the p!aintiff/appellant on one hand and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and
E Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 on the other. This addition, if allowed, would
lead to a complicated-litig~tion by which the trial and decision of serious
questions which are totally outside the scope of the suit would have to be
gone into. As the decree of a suit for specific performance of the contract for
sale, if passed, cannot, at all, affect the right, title and interest of the respondent
Nos. I and 4 to 11 in respect of the contracted property and in view of the •.
F detailed discussion n: :e hereinearlier, the respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11
would not, at all, be necessary to be added in the instant suit for specific
perfom1ance of the contract for sale.

16. It is difficult to conceive that while deciding the question as to who
is in possession of the contracted property, it would be open to the Court to_
G decide the question of possession of a third party/ or a stranger as first the
lis to be decided is the enforceability of the contract entered into between the
appellant and the respondent No. 3 and whether contract was executed by the .....
'
appellant and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for sale of the contracted property,
whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the
H contract and whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for specific
KASTURI v. IYY AMPERUMAL [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] 877
performance of a contract for sale against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Secondly A
in that case, whoever asserts his independent possession of the contracted
property has to be added in the suit, then this process may continue without
a final decision of the suit. Apart from that, the intervener must be directly.
and legally interested in the answers to the controversies involved in the suit
for specific performance of the contract for sale. In Amo/ v. Rasheed Tuck B
and Sons ltd., [1956] I All Eng.Reporter, 273 it has been held that a person
is legally interested in the answers to the controversies only if he can satisfy
the Court that it may lead to a result that will effect him legally.

17. That apart, there is another principle which cannot also be forgotten.
The appellant, who has filed the instant suit for specific performance of the C
contract for sale is dominus litus and cannot be forced to add parties against
whom he does not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law,
as already discussed above. For the reasons aforesaid, we are therefore of the
view that respondent Nos. I and 4 to I ( are neither necessary parties nor
proper parties and therefore they are not entitled to be added as party-
defendants in the pending suit for specific performance of the contract for D
sale.

18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. I and 4 to
11, however, contended that since the respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 claimed
to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of their independent title
to the same, and as the appellant had also claimed the relief of possession in E
the plaint, the issue with regard to possession is common to the parties
including respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11, therefore, the same can be settled
in the present suit itself. Accordingly, it was submitted that the presence of
respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 would be necessary for proper adjudication of
such dispute. Thts argument which also weighed with the two courts below F
a/though at the first blush appeared to be of substance but on careful
consideration of all the aspects as indicated hereinearlier, including the scope
of the suit, we are of the view that it lacks merit. Merely, in order to find out
who is in possession of the contracted property, a third party or a stranger to
the contract can·not be added in a suit for specific performance of the contract
for sale because the respondent Nos. l and 4 to 11 are not necessary parties G
as there was no semblance of right to some relief against the respondent No.3
- to the contract. In our view, the third party to the agreement for sale without
challenging the title of the respondent No. 3, even assuming they are in
possession of the contracted property, cannot protect their possession without
filing a separate suit for title and possession against the vendor. It is well H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A settled that in a suit for spe.cific performance of a contract for sale the lis
between the appellant and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall only be gone into
and it is also not open to the Court to decide whether the respondent Nos. I
and 4 to 11 have acquired any title and possession of the contracted property
as that would not be germane for decision in the suit for specific performance
of the contract for sale, that is to say in a suit for specific performance of the
B contract for sale the controversy to be decided raised by the appell:int against
respondent Nos.2 and 3 can only be adjudicated upon, and in such a lis the
Court cannot decide the question of title and possession of the respondent
Nos. I and 4 to 11 relating to the contracted property.

C 19. It was also argued on behalf of responJent Nos. I and 4 to 11 that
to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be appropriate to join the respondent
Nos. I and 4 to 11 as party-defendants as the question relating to the possession
of the suit property would be finally and effectively settled. In view of our
discussions made hereinabove, this argument also which weighed with the
two courts below· has no substance. In view of the di!:cussions made
D hereinearlier, the two tests by which a person who is seeking addition in a
pending suit for specific performance of the contract for sale must be satisfied.
As stated hereinearlier, first there must be a right to the same relief against
a party relating to the same subject-matter involved in the proceedings for
specific performance of contract for sale, and secondly, it would not be
E possible for the Court to pass effective decree or order in the absence of such
a party. If we apply these two tests in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, it would be evident that the respondent Nos. I and 4 to II
cannot satisfy the above two tests for determining the question whether a
stranger/third party is entitled to be added under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC
only .on the ground that if the decree for specific performance of the contract
F for sale is passed in absence of respondent Nos. I and 4 to l l, their possession
over the contracted property can be disturbed or they can be dispossessed
from the contracted property in ·execution of the decree for specific
performance of· the contract for sale obtained by the appellant against
respondent Nos 2 and 3. ~uch _peing the position, in our view, it was nofopen
G to the High Court or the trial court to join other cause of action in the instant
suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, and therefore, the two
Courts below acted illegally and without jurisdiction in allowing the application
for addition of parties in the pending suit for specific performance of contract
for sale filed at the instance of respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 .•The Learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 however urged that since the
H two courts below had exercised their jurisdiction in allowing the application
KASTURI v. IYYAMPERUMAL [T ARUN CHATTER.IEE, J.] 879
for addition of parties, it was not open to this Court to interfere with such A
order of the High Court as well as of the trial court. We are unable to accept
this contention of the Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. l and 4 to 11.
As discussed hereinearlier, it is open to the Court to interfere with the order
if it is held that two courts below had acted without jurisdiction or acted
illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in B
the matter of allowing the application for addition of parties filed under
Order l Rule I 0 of the CPC. The question of jurisdiction of the Court to
invoke Order I Rule l 0 of the CPC to add a party who is not made a party
in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added
has direct interest in the controversy involved in the suit. Can it be said that
the Respondent Nos. I and 4 to I I had any direct interest in the subject- C
matter of the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for sale? In
our view the Respondent Nos. I and 4 to I I had no direct interest in the suit
for specific performance because they are not parties to the contract nor do
they claim any interest from the parties to the litigation. One more aspect
may be considered in this connection. It is that the jurisdiction of the court
to add an applicant shall arise only when the Court finds that such applicant D
is either a necessary party or a proper party.

20. It may be reiterated here that if the appellant who has filed the
instant suit for specific perfonnance of contract for sale even after receiving
the notice of claim of title and possession by the respondent Nos. I and 4 to E
l l does not want to join the respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 in the pending
suit, it is always done at the risk of the appellant because he cannot be forced
upon to join the respondent Nos I and 4 to I I as party- defendants in such
suit. In the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation
ofGreater Bombay and Ors., [I992] 2 SCC 524, on the question of jurisdiction
this Court clearly has laid down that it is always open to the court to interfere F
with an order allowing an application for addition of parties when it is found
that the courts below had gone wrong in concluding that the persons sought
to be added in the suit were necessary or proper parties to be added as
defendants in the suit instituted by the plaintiff appellant. In that case also
this Court interfered with the orders of the courts below and rejected the
application for addition of parties. Such being the position, it can no longer G
be said that this Court cannot set aside the impugned orders of the courts
below on the ground that jurisdiction to invoke power under Order I Rule I0
of the CPC has already been exercised by the two courts below in favour of
the respondent Nos. I and 4 to l l.
H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 3 S.C.R.

A 21. For the reasons afores!lid, in our view, the stranger to the contract,
namely, the respondent Nos. I and 4 to 11 making claim independent and
adverse to the title of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are neither necessary nor
proper parties, and therefore, not entitled to join as party defendants in the
suit for specific perfonnance of contract for sale.

B 22. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the trial court are
therefore liable to be set aside. The impugned orders are thus set aside and
the application for addition of parties filed at the instance of respondent Nos.
l and 4 to 11 stands rejected. The appeal is thus allowed. We, however, make
it clear that we have not decided in this judgment as to the title and possession
C of respondent Nos. l and 4 to 11 of the suit property and all such questions
are kept open in the event any approach is made either by the respondent
Nos. l and 4 to 11 or by the appellant· in any appropriate court.

23. There will be no order as to costs.

D S.K.S. Appeal allowed.