Madras High Court
Raji vs Chinnaraji on 19 September, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 16.09.2025 Order pronounced on : 19.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.1135 of 2022
& CMP.No.5914 of 2022
1.Raji
2.Murugan ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.Chinnaraji
2.Baggiyammal
3.C.Karunagaran ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the impugned fair and decretal order dated 03.09.2021 passed
in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.19 of 2018 by the learned Principal District
Judge, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioners : Mr.Arun Anbumani
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan
ORDER
The appellants in A.S.No.19 of 2018 before the Principal District Court,
Dharmapuri, aggrieved by the order dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2019 in the said
appeal, are the revision petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:10:50 pm )
2.I have heard Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondents.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Arun Anbumani, would
contend that in a suit for specific performance for enforcing an agreement of
sale, a decree came to be passed holding that the defendants /appellants were
not entitled to relief. He would also bring to my notice that the said suit was
jointly tried along with a suit for declaration of title and injunction, which came
to be filed by the contesting respondents, that is the vendors to the agreement of
sale, which suit came to be decreed. Pending the appeal, the appellants,
claiming that the respondents 1 and 2 had entered into a registered agreement of
sale on 19.07.2018, took out an application for impleading the agreement
holder in the said agreement dated 19.07.2018.
4.Mr.Arun Anbumani would also contend that under the said agreement,
a total sale consideration has been fixed at Rs.15 lakhs and it is claimed that
Rs.14.5 lakhs has already been paid and for payment of the balance
Rs.50,000/-, 36 months has been fixed. Referring to these unusual terms,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:10:50 pm )
Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the
agreement is a farce and has been set up only to defeat the rights of the
appellants, pending the appeal, which is filed against the dismissal of the suit
for specific performance. He would further state that in the event of the
appellants succeeding in the appeal, ultimately they should not be driven to
further rounds of litigation with the new agreement holder and therefore, he
would pray for the revision being allowed, so that the appeal could be decided
in the presence of the new agreement holder and no prejudice would be caused
thereby to any of the respondents including the proposed parties.
5.Per contra, Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondents
would firstly contend that the proposed party is only an agreement holder and
he has no right or interest in the property. He would also bring to my notice that
the agreement dated 19.07.2018 has already lapsed and admittedly, the
agreement holder has not taken any steps to enforce the said agreement. He
would also contend that the appellants' right are not in any manner affected and
by impleading the agreement holders pending the first appeal, in the absence of
any pleading with regard to the said agreement holder who is sought to be
impleaded in the first appeal and also there being no relief or claim as against
him, there would be no useful purpose in impleading the said agreement holder
in the first appeal. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:10:50 pm )
6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side and I have gone through the order of the Appellate Court
dismissing the application seeking impleadment of the subsequent agreement
holder.
7.The appeal suit is directed against the decree, dismissing a suit for
specific performance. In other words, the appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit
for specific performance, who are seeking to enforce an agreement of sale in
their favour. The trial Court has negatived their prayer and thereby the plaintiffs
have challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the above First
Appeal. It is the contention of the appellants that they have come to know about
a registered agreement of sale extended into by the respondents 1 and 2 on
19.07.2018 and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the agreement
holder has to be impleaded in the pending First Appeal.
8.As rightly contended by Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, an agreement holder does not acquire any right or interest
in the immovable property, by virtue of entering into an agreement to purchase
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:10:50 pm )
the suit property. Moreover, the suit has already been disposed of and the
plaintiffs, having been unsuccessful, are on appeal and in the pending appeal,
there is no role for the subsequent agreement holder to play.
9.I find that that there is not even a whisper about the said agreement
holder in the pleadings before the Court and there is admittedly no relief sought
for also against the proposed party. Further, the agreement of sale itself has
been entered into only after the dismissal of the suit. In such circumstances,
there is absolutely no necessity for impleading the said agreement holder, that
too, in the First Appeal.
10.The proposed party is not in any manner going to aid the First
Appellate Court in deciding the points that arise for determination in the said
First Appeal, that too, only in a suit for specific performance. If it was a case of
the proposed party, who is sought to be impleaded, being a prior agreement
holder, then at least, there is legitimate ground or possibility to permit
impleadment of such an agreement holder. However, it is not so in the present
case and in the absence of any pleadings as well relief claimed as against the
proposed party, I do not see any justifiable grounds to implead the agreement
holder. The First Appellate Court has rightly found that the proposed party is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:10:50 pm )
neither a proper nor necessary party for effectively adjudicating the disputes
that have arisen between the parties to the lis. In view of the above, I do not
find any merit in the revision.
11.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.09.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:10:50 pm )
To
The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:10:50 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.J,
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
19.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 08:10:50 pm )
