JUDGMENT 1. These eight civil revision petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the common order passed by the Sub Court, Poonamallee made in I.A.Nos.297 to 304 of 2010 in A.S.Nos.12 to 18 and 31 of 2009, dated 31.01.2011, wherein and by which the contesting respondents were impleaded as party respondents in A.S.Nos.12 to 18 and 31 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. 2. C.R.P.Nos.2820 to 2825 of 2011 when they came up on 03.08.2011, notice of motion was ordered returnable by two weeks and an interim stay was granted. Similarly, in C.R.P.Nos.2826 and 2827 of 2011, on 17.8.2011 a similar order was passed. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel leading Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 in all civil revision petitions and Mr.D.Palani, learned counsel for the 4th respondent in all civil revision petitions. 4. The petitioner company filed suits before the learned District Munsif, Ambattur in O.S.Nos.503 of 1996, 47 of 1997, 502 of 1996, 501 of 1996, 408 of 1996, 45 of 1997, 356 of 2004 and 46 of 1997. In all the suits, one R.Madhavan, i.e., 4th respondent, was the first defendant and there were also other defendants. The suits were filed for cancellation of sale deeds made in favour of the contesting 4th respondent for not complying with the conditions and that the properties belonged to the petitioner company. The suits were decreed as against the 4th respondent and other respondents in the C.R.P., who were given up by the petitioner. The four suits were decreed on 31.7.2008 and the other four suits were decreed on 01.08.2008. As against the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Ambattur, the 4th respondent herein preferred appeals before the Sub Court, Poonamallee being A.S.Nos.12 to 18 and 31 of 2009. In all the appeal suits, the present petitioner was shown as the first respondent and that the other defendants in original suits were shown as other respondents. Before the lower appellate court, the proposed respondents have filed a final report filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee, dated 04.03.2010. 5. It is at this stage, the present contesting respondents, i.e., respondents 1 to 3 filed applications for impleading themselves as party respondents in the appeal suits. Before the lower appellate court, the proposed respondents have filed a final report filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee, dated 04.03.2010. 5. It is at this stage, the present contesting respondents, i.e., respondents 1 to 3 filed applications for impleading themselves as party respondents in the appeal suits. The first respondent filed affidavits on behalf of other respondents 2 and 3 for impleading themselves. The applications were filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. It was claimed by the first respondent in his identical affidavits, dated 27.9.2010 that the Morai village along with other villages were gifted to his ancestors before the time immemorial even before Moghul and British rule as they belong to "Srotria" class and their right to property cannot be challenged or their properties cannot be retaken by any subsequent act of Government. The "Srotria" class forms part of superior class in the Brahmin community as endowed by the Hindu law as propounded by ancient texts and scriptures and also customs having the force of law. The right of impleading respondents over the Morai village and other villagers cannot be whittled down by the acts of the revision petitioners. The respondents 1 to 3 are descendants of ancestors who were the original grantees of the villages including the Morai village. They have been in continuous, uninterrupted and rightful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The revision petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.258 of 2009 before the Distirct Munsif, Poonamallee, wherein the proposed respondents were shown as defendants and they are contesting the suit. As against the interim order, they have also preferred appeals in C.M.A.Nos.9 and 10 of 2010 and therefore, they are proper and necessary parties. 6. These impleading applications were numbered as I.A.Nos.297 to 304 of 2010. On notice, a counter affidavit was filed by the 4th respondent, wherein he averred that the revision petitioner had executed a registered sale deed on 06.08.1979 in his favour and that the possession was handed over to him. He became the absolute owner of the suit property. The mutation of records have also been made. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since the date of purchase. It is at this juncture, the revision petitioner filed suits before the District Munsif, Ambattur for re-conveying the suit property. He became the absolute owner of the suit property. The mutation of records have also been made. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since the date of purchase. It is at this juncture, the revision petitioner filed suits before the District Munsif, Ambattur for re-conveying the suit property. Though the 4th respondent had contested the suit stating that the suit was barred by law and the revision petitioner was not entitled for re-conveyance of the suit property, nevertheless the suit was decreed as noted already. But as against the decree, he had preferred an appeal. The proposed respondents are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The suit can be adjudicated without the presence of the proposed parties. The title to the suit properties was not an issue either in the suit or in the appeal. 7. On behalf of the revision petitioner a counter affidavit was also filed, wherein they have questioned the locus standi of the proposed respondents. It was stated that the suit was filed initially in the year 1985. After the formation of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, it was transferred there and renumbered. It was pending for more than 20 years. Even the appeal suit filed by the 4th respondent was pending for more than 2 years. The suit was originally filed for re-conveyance of the suit land. The proposed respondents have no interest in the suit as the suit was only for specific performance based upon the clause of re-conveyance and the parties to the said contract alone are necessary and proper parties. The proposed respondents have not shown any interest in the appeal and their self serving statement that they are the owners of the suit land cannot be taken into consideration. Hence the applications should be dismissed. 8. It is upon the pleadings, the Sub Court, Poonamallee clubbed all applications together and passed a common order on 31.01.2011. The learned Sub Judge held that in the appeal, the revision petitioner and the 4th respondent were locked up regarding the validity of the sale. In respect of the same property, the revision petitioner also filed O.S.No.259 of 2009 against the proposed respondents, wherein the proposed respondents were contesting. When they wanted to file the patta in the suit, it was objected to and it was not marked in the suit. In respect of the same property, the revision petitioner also filed O.S.No.259 of 2009 against the proposed respondents, wherein the proposed respondents were contesting. When they wanted to file the patta in the suit, it was objected to and it was not marked in the suit. A criminal complaint given against the proposed respondents was declared as mistake of fact. The criminal investigating department had found that the revision petitioner has no right in the said property. Considering all these facts, it looked as though the proposed respondents were having right in the said property. In case if they were refused to be impleaded, there may be an attempt to be made before the lower court that they have not got themselves impleaded as parties. Though the appeal may be heard even without the presence of the proposed parties, since without the presence of the proposed respondents, the ownership of the property cannot be determined, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2010 (5) CTC 354, they may be made as party respondents in the appeal. It is as against the order of impleadment, these revision petitions were filed before this court. 9. It was stated by the petitioner that the proposed respondents are strangers. Though they claimed that they are Shrotriumdar, no piece of paper was produced to prove that they had srotriya grant. The suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration that the conditions in the sale deed were not valid in law and that no relief was claimed against the proposed respondents. The petitioner had been given ryotwari patta pursuant to the settlement proceedings held in the year 1976. After 15 years, the contesting respondents 1 to 3 have no right to come on record. Even the document filed by them, i..e, the final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate closing the case on the RCS notice, was factually incorrect. The criminal case was transferred to CBCID to conduct an investigation afresh in respect of Crime Nos.6 and 7 of 2010. In fact, the criminal case was reopened by the order of this court and transferred to CBCID by an order of the Director General of Police. Being the dominus litus, the petitioner / plaintiff is entitled to choose parties to the suit. The third parties have no right to come on record without having any semblance of right, title or interest. Being the dominus litus, the petitioner / plaintiff is entitled to choose parties to the suit. The third parties have no right to come on record without having any semblance of right, title or interest. The suit was kept pending for more than 10 years. In all these years, no claim was made. Both the petitioner / plaintiff as well as contesting defendant / appellant have categorically stated that the presence of the contesting respondents 1 to 3 are not required. It was rather unfortunate that the lower appellate court should implead the respondents 1 to 3 as party respondents. Hence they prayed for setting aside the order of impleadment. 10. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was correct in stating that the document relied on by the lower appellate court, i.e., the final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee does not survive any more. The case was transferred to the CBCID for further investigation. The CBCID had conducted reinvestigation by registering the case in Crime Nos.6 and 7 of 2010. The proposed respondents have filed a memo before the learned Magistrate and thereafter filed a criminal revision case before this court under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. in Crl.R.C.No.1411 of 2011. The said criminal revision case was disposed of by this court on 15.6.2012 holding that till the disposal of the civil matters and the writ petitions pending before this court, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee dated 23.04.201 will be kept in abeyance. 11. The Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733 in paragraphs 7, 13 and 20 had observed as follows: "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. 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—(1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. 13. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the court would be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person. 20. It was also argued on behalf of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 that to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be appropriate to join Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 as party-defendants as the question relating to the possession of the suit property would be finally and effectively settled. In view of our discussions made hereinabove, this argument also which weighed with the two courts below has no substance. In view of the discussions made here in earlier, the two tests by which a person who is seeking addition in a pending suit for specific performance of the contract for sale must be satisfied. As stated here in earlier, first, there must be a right to the same relief against a party relating to the same subject-matter involved in the proceedings for specific performance of contract for sale, and secondly, it would not be possible for the court to pass effective decree or order in the absence of such a party. As stated here in earlier, first, there must be a right to the same relief against a party relating to the same subject-matter involved in the proceedings for specific performance of contract for sale, and secondly, it would not be possible for the court to pass effective decree or order in the absence of such a party. If we apply these two tests in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be evident that Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 cannot satisfy the above two tests for determining the question whether a stranger/third party is entitled to be added under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only on the ground that if the decree for specific performance of the contract for sale is passed in absence of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11, their possession over the contracted property can be disturbed or they can be dispossessed from the contracted property in execution of the decree for specific performance of the contract for sale obtained by the appellant against Respondents 2 and 3. Such being the position, in our view, it was not open to the High Court or the trial court to join other cause of action in the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, and therefore, the two courts below acted illegally and without jurisdiction in allowing the application for addition of parties in the pending suit for specific performance of contract for sale filed at the instance of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11. The learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 4 to 11, however, urged that since the two courts below had exercised their jurisdiction in allowing the application for addition of parties, it was not open to this Court to interfere with such order of the High Court as well as of the trial court. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 4 to 11. As discussed here in earlier, it is open to the Court to interfere with the order if it is held that two courts below had acted without jurisdiction or acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in the matter of allowing the application for addition of parties filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. As discussed here in earlier, it is open to the Court to interfere with the order if it is held that two courts below had acted without jurisdiction or acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in the matter of allowing the application for addition of parties filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct interest in the controversy involved in the suit. Can it be said that Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 had any direct interest in the subject-matter of the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for sale? In our view Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 had no direct interest in the suit for specific performance because they are not parties to the contract nor do they claim any interest from the parties to the litigation. One more aspect may be considered in this connection. It is that the jurisdiction of the court to add an applicant shall arise only when the court finds that such applicant is either a necessary party or a proper party." 12. The Kasturi case (cited supra) came to be explained subsequently by the Supreme Court in Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) reported in (2007) 10 SCC 82 and in paragraph 14, it was observed as follows: "14. In view of the aforesaid decisions we are of the opinion that Kasturi case1 is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced." 13. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced." 13. However, the Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited reported in 2010 (5) CTC 354 (SC) = (2010) 7 SCC 417 , after referring to the Sumtibai's case (cited supra) held that it was not a good law and the law was laid in Kasturi's case by a three judge bench. In paragraphs 13 to 15 and 17, it was observed as follows: "13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code’, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below: “10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties. “The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” 14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. 15. A ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a ‘necessary party’ is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A ‘proper party’ is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance. 17. The learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that the decision in Sumtibai1 is not good law in view of an earlier decision of a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal2." 14. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel heavily placed reliance upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384 for contending that in given circumstances, a party can be impleaded for proper adjudication of the suit. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel heavily placed reliance upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384 for contending that in given circumstances, a party can be impleaded for proper adjudication of the suit. Reliance was placed upon the following passage found in paragraph 41, which reads as follows: "41. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 41.1. The court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court. 41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff. 41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the court or the application is unduly delayed then the court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment." But, this judgment does not support the case of the respondents. The lower appellate court, in fact, recorded that the suit can be adjudicated even without the presence of the impleading parties. 15. The lower appellate court, in fact, recorded that the suit can be adjudicated even without the presence of the impleading parties. 15. Further, it was agreed by the petitioner that the proposed respondents are defendants in O.S.No.259 of 2009, wherein a declaratory relief regarding the scheduled properties are sought for and the proposed respondents have entered appearance and have filed a written statement. Besides, it is also brought to the notice that the contesting respondents who got impleaded in the appeal suits, have filed a series of suits before the District Munsif, Ambattur being O.S.Nos.367 to 371, 397 to 410, 421 to 430, 435 to 444 of 2011, seeking to set aside various sale deeds executed by the revision petitioner. The Sub court though correctly held that the appeal suits can be heard without the presence of the contesting respondents, yet on a tangent found that there was likelihood of some defence being taken before the lower court against the impleading parties as a ground for impleading them. Reliance placed upon by the lower appellate court in a judgment of the Supreme Court in 2010 (5) CTC 354 = (2010) 7 SCC 417 is erroneous and the court had not understood the ratio of the said judgment, as noted above. 16. In the light of the above, all civil revision petitions will stand allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sub Court, Poonamallee in I.A.Nos.297 to 304 of 2010 in A.S.Nos.12 to 18 and 31 of 2009, dated 31.01.2011 stand set aside. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.