ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by the impleading applicant whose application U/o I rule 10(2)CPC was dismissed in a suit for partition. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule property. The impleading applicant claims to have entered into an agreement of sale with defendants 5 to 8 by paying substantial amount and to have improved the property; he has also filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Since there is a reference to the partition suit in the agreement, he filed an application for impleadment in the partition suit, in order to protect his interest. The said application was opposed and the trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the application observing that since the agreement of sale came into existence during the pendency of the proceedings, the agreement holder is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit for partition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Ravanasiddappa vs. Ganga Revanna reported in 2010 (5) KCCR 3525, to contend that the impleading applicant is a necessary party in the suit for partition. He also relies on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and another vs. Vishnu Hari Patil and others, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 18 , wherein it is held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of the suit, is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest and therefore has a right to be impleaded as party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made by virtue of Rule 10 of Order 22 CPC. The petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi & others vs. P. Mohan and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1062 where in it is held that a bona fide purchaser of the suit property by co-sharers during pendency of a suit for partition is a necessary party in the suit for partition. The last judgment on which reliance was placed is the decision of this Court in the case of Harikishan and others vs. Ramesh and others, reported in 2008 KCCR 1350 where, it has been held that the court has discretion to grant leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC to implead a person without a detailed enquiry and a transferee pendente lite can be added as a party if his interest is substantial and not merely peripheral. 4. In all the aforesaid judgments, the person who wanted to be impleaded was a person claiming interest in the immoveable property under a sale deed. He was a transferee of the property during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore any order to be passed in the suit would naturally affect his interest and therefore it was held that the transferee of the property is a necessary and proper party in the suit. 5. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act dealing with sale categorically provides that a contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not create any interest in or charge on such property. Therefore, no interest in an immovable property is created in favour of 'agreement holder' under an agreement of sale. Since the agreement holder has no interest in the suit property, he cannot be impleaded in the suit for partition and possession where only presence of those persons who are connected by blood is required to adjudicate the rights. The preliminary decree declares only the rights of such parties in the immoveable property. 6. In the instant case, the impleading applicant is admittedly neither a family member nor claiming any interest in the immoveable property. He is a mere an agreement holder. He has not acquired any interest in the property covered under the agreement. His presence is therefore not required for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. That is what precisely the trial Court has held and there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.