ORDER The first respondent filed O.S.No.212 of 2000, in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, against the second respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, in respect of two items of properties shown in the suit schedule. Petitioner is the mother (sic son) of the second respondent. He filed I.A.No.701 of 2004, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., to get himself impleaded as defendant No.2, in that suit. 2. According to the petitioner, his father made a settlement at a time, when he was only two years old, creating life interest, in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property, in the second respondent herein, and vested remainder in him. He urged that whatever may be the rights and obligations of the respondents herein, vis-a-vis the first item of the suit schedule, the second respondent did not have the right to enter into any transaction, or sale, as regards the second item of the suit schedule property. The application was resisted by the first respondent, and the trial court dismissed the I.A. through order dated 27-9-2004. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The first respondent claimed the relief of specific performance, against the second respondent. The petitioner claims interest in one of the items of suit schedule property. In a suit for specific performance, it is not only the executant of the agreement, but also the persons, having any interest in the property to be sold; that need to be made as parties. The reason is that if the title of the property vested in a different person, mere existence of agreement executed by a third party, does not entitle the agreement holder, to seek specific performance. Even where a decree is passed in such cases, the interested person can object, at the stage of execution. In fact, it would be in the interest of the plaintiff in such suits, that all persons claiming any interest in such property are impleaded as parties, so that a comprehensive and effective adjudication is undertaken. In a way, it can be said that absence of the petitioner, as a party to the instant suit, would be detrimental to the interests of the first-respondent himself. 5. In a way, it can be said that absence of the petitioner, as a party to the instant suit, would be detrimental to the interests of the first-respondent himself. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P. is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside, and I.A.No.701 of 2004 shall stand allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.