( 1 ) IN a suit for specific performance of an agreement, filed by the revision petitioner against respondents 1 and 2, 3rd respondent filed a petition to implead himself as a party to the suit, on the ground that he has title to the suit property and so he is a necessary party to the suit. That petition was allowed by the trial court under revision. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that since the suitfor specific performance of the agreement executed by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner, 3rd respondent who is not a party to the said agreement is not either a proper or necessary party and so the order under revision directing his impleadment is unsustainable, by relying on Kasturi v. lyyamperumal , where it is held that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of property, a third party or a stranger to the contract, claiming to have an independent title and possession over suit property, is not entitled to be added as a party- defendant in the said suit to convert the suit for specific performance into a suit of different character. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for 3rd respondent, who filed the petition for impleadment, is that as he (3rd respondent) became the owner of the property covered by the agreement of sale between the revision petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 by virtue of a gift long, priorto the agreement between the revision petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 and since that gift was got validated subsequently, after filing of the suit, respondents 1 and 2 who have no title or possession over the property agreed to be sold, could not have entered into an agreement with the revision petitioner. ( 4 ) THE suit admittedly, is for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The issue in the suit would be whetherthe plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement in his favour or not. Question of title of the property agreed to be sold, need not be gone into in a suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by the purchaser, because the defending vendor cannot take a plea that he has no title over the property agreed to be sold by him. Question of title of the property agreed to be sold, need not be gone into in a suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by the purchaser, because the defending vendor cannot take a plea that he has no title over the property agreed to be sold by him. That apart many of the documents relied on by the 3rd respondent came into existence subsequent to filing of the suit. It is well known that documents that have come into existence after the suit have little relevancy in deciding the questions that arise for decision in the suit. All these apart, as held by the Apex Court in Kasturi s case (1 supra), a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added as a party in a suit for specific performance. If 3rd respondent feels that he is the owner of the properties covered by the suit agreement and that third parties are trying to interfere with his rights, he has to take recourse to the other remedies open to him in law, but cannot seek to be impleaded as a party to the suit for specific performance filed by the revision petitioner/ purchaser. ( 5 ) THEREFORE the revision petition is allowed and I. A. No. 125 of 1999 in O. S. No. 274 of 1990 on the file of I Additional senior Civil Judge, Warangal stands dismissed. No costs.