SENGALANI GRAMANI Vs. SUBBAYYA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District munsif, Poonamallee, dismissing the application which the petitioner filed in the suit as defendant for impleading one Ranganatha Mehata as the second defendant in the suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against this petitioner for declaration of his title to Schedule A and for recovery of possession thereof mentioned as Schedule B in the plaint. The basis of the application of the petitioner was that Ranganatha Mehata from whom the plaintiff had purchased the property had agreed to sell the schedule A property to the defendant and that the plaintiff had notice of that agreement. The application was filed by the defendant under Order 8-A, C. P. C. The learned District Munsif in dismissing the application pointed out that there was no question of indemnity or contribution sought to be recovered from Ranganatha Mehata and therefore Order 8-A did not apply. In this petition Sri R. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that though the Order 8-A as such will not apply, Ranganatha Mehata could have been impleaded under O. I, Rule 10, C. P. C. But I do not think that it is necessary to implead him even under O. I, Rule 10, C. P. C. The reason is that, as the Privy council have indicated as early as 1934 in Pir Baksh v. Mahomed Takar, ILR 58 bom 650: (AIR 1934 PC 235), the alleged right of the defendant under the agreement of sale cannot be valid defence to an action in ejectment and that the only means by which the defendant can work out his right is to file a separate suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale impleading Ranganatha mehata and the plaintiff and apply for stay of trial of the suit in ejectment pending the trial of the suit for specific performance. The learned District Munsif is wrong in thinking that the truth of the agreement of sale could be gone into in the present suit as a valid defence and without Ranganatha Mehata being impleaded. For the reasons mentioned above, Ranganatha Mehata is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.