APHC010322402021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 974/2021 Between: Kadambari Suryanarayana Murthy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Gurram Vara Prasadarao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 975/2021 Between: Tallapragada Venkata Rama Lakshmana Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Gurram Vara Prasadarao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.Nos.974 and 975 of 2021 COMMON ORDER: CRP.No.974 of 2021 is filed questioning the order dated 13.03.2020 in I.A.No.10 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2015 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Sompet. 2. CRP.No.975 of 2021 is filed questioning the order dated 13.03.2020 in I.A.No.11 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2015 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Sompet. 3. Brief facts of the case: The petitioners are the third parties to the suit. The 1st respondent had filed suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.03.2014 directing the defendants to survey the schedule land and execute registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs. 4. As per the plaint, the plaintiff had entered into a possessory agreement of sale for purchase of schedule property for an extent of Ac.25.10 and ¼ cents @ Rs.1,40,000/- per acre. It was stated that the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to the defendants. As the defendants were not coming forward to execute the registered sale deed, 3 the present suit was filed. The contesting Defendant No.5 filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. 5. While so, the petitioners who claim to have purchased the schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 17.07.2019 vide document No.656/2019 and document No.657/2019 dated 18.07.2019, on the strength of the registered sale deeds, sought to come on record in the pending suit. The application was rejected by the trial Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson1. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Heard Sri Goli G.V.S.Sai for Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Sai Sri Sanjay, proxy counsel for Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the Respondents. 7. Contentions: Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioners are elderly citizens and purchased an extent of Ac.25.10 and ¼ cents without notice of the present suit and the agreements of sale. Barring defendant No.5, as none of the defendants are contesting the suit, it has become necessary for the Petitioners to come on record and defend their title to the schedule property. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the Petitioners are pendente lite purchasers and the plaintiff cannot be compelled to proceed a suit for specific performance against the proposed defendants. 1 2020(13) SCC 773 4 He placed reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others2 and Gurmit Singh Bhatia (2 supra) to substantiate his plea that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to proceed against his choice. Plaintiff being the dominus litis cannot be compelled to proceed against parties. 9. Reasoning: The Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) specifies persons against whom the relief can be sought by the plaintiff and Section 19 (b) of the Act provides for enforcement of the decree of specific performance against a subsequent transferee to the contract, except a transferee, who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contractor. 10. In this case, Petitioners seek to come on record as they are bona fide purchasers of the scheduled property without notice of the earlier agreement of sale said to have been executed by original defendants. It is also their contention that barring Defendant No.5 none of the defendants had filed written statement and they are worried about there being a proper defence in the suit. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Gurmit Singh Bhatia’s case (2 supra) held that plaintiff is dominus litus in a suit for specific performance and he cannot be compelled to add parties against his wish. It was also 2 (2005) 6 SCC 733 5 observed that non-adding of parties is at the risk of plaintiff. The paragraph 5.6 of the said judgment is extracted below: 5.6. Therefore, considering the decision of this Court in Kasturi [Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733] , the appellant cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the original plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract between the original plaintiffs and original Defendant 1 and in a suit for specific performance of the contract to which the appellant is not a party and that too against the wish of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot be forced to add party against whom he does not want to fight. If he does so, in that case, it will be at the risk of the plaintiffs. 12. Considering the above judgment and as Section 19(b) of the Act provides for an exception of enforcement of a decree of specific performance against a bona fide purchaser, while upholding the order of the trial Court, it is made clear that the rights under the sale deed in favor of the Petitioners shall not be affected by virtue of judgment and decree in the suit in question unless it is established in a competent proceedings that the Petitioners had not purchased the property in good faith and without notice of original contract. 13. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.01.2025 KLP