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. The crux of the Supreme Court’s judgment has been given below.
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal
7. In our view, a bare reading of this provision, namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) 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. 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. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are: There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; No effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733
* * *
10. 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.
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733
* * *
15 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.
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733
