JUDGMENT : Suit for specific performance of contract filed by the appellant against the respondent was decreed by the learned trial Court. This decree was reversed in appeal by the learned first Appellate Court. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has instituted this regular second appeal. Parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the learned trial court. 2. Facts 2(i) Suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.2.1996 in respect of land entered in Khata No. 58 Khatoni No. 60 Khasra No. 7 measuring 0-9 Marlas of 2/3 share measuring 0-6 Marlas, Khata No. 59 Khatoni No. 61 Khasra No. 6 measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas of 1/6 share measuring 0-4 Marlas, total area of both the Khatas measuring 0-10 Marlas, situate in Tika Dugga Khurd, Tappa Matti-Morian, Tehsil and District Hamirpur H.P. was instituted by the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff pleaded that Shri Ashwani Kumar-husband of the defendant was owner in possession of the suit property. He entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 20.2.1996 in respect of the suit land for sale consideration amount of Rs. 2.25 lacs. Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to Shri Ashwani Kumar at home and Rs. 60,000/- were paid by the plaintiff by way of two different cheques. Pursuant to the agreement, possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff. In terms of the agreement dated 20.2.1996, the sale deed was to be executed by Shri Ashwani Kumar, the husband of the defendant on or before 31.7.1996. The sale deed was not executed by 31.7.1996. Rather on 31.7.1996, Shri Ashwani Kumar executed another agreement in continuation of the agreement dated 20.2.1996. The plaintiff paid Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- by way of cheques to Shri Ashwani Kumar on 31.7.1996. The balance consideration amount of Rs. 75,000/- in terms of the agreement dated 31.7.1996 was to be paid to Shri Ashwani Kumar at the time of registration of the sale deed which was to be executed on or before 31.12.1996. Shri Ashwani Kumar, husband of the defendant kept on postponing the execution of the sale deed. On 31.12.1996, he, however, agreed to execute the sale deed by 31.3.1997. Shri Ashwani Kumar died on 26.1.1997. The plaintiff thereafter approached widow of Sh. Ashwani Kumarthe defendant for executing the sale deed in terms of the agreements dated 20.2.1996 and 31.7.1996. Shri Ashwani Kumar, husband of the defendant kept on postponing the execution of the sale deed. On 31.12.1996, he, however, agreed to execute the sale deed by 31.3.1997. Shri Ashwani Kumar died on 26.1.1997. The plaintiff thereafter approached widow of Sh. Ashwani Kumarthe defendant for executing the sale deed in terms of the agreements dated 20.2.1996 and 31.7.1996. Legal notices were also issued to the defendants in this regard on 21.3.1997, 10.7.1997 and 23.12.1997. These were not responded by the defendant. All this led the plaintiff to file the civil suit praying for decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.2.1996. 2(ii) Written statement was filed by the defendant. She denied that any such agreement as asserted by the plaintiff was ever executed by her late husband. She denied receipt of payments allegedly made by the plaintiff to her husband. Defendant also raised an objection that suit was not maintainable against her. 2(iii) The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Oral as well as documentary evidence was produced. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and contentions of the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.2007. While decreeing the suit, learned trial Court held that in the revenue record, Sh. Ashwani Kumar-husband of the defendant was recorded as owner in possession alongwith several other co-sharers. He had executed the agreement to sell the suit land in favour of plaintiff. After death of Shri Ashwani Kumar-mutation of suit land was attested in favour of defendant. Therefore, she was liable to execute the sale deed. 2(iv) The appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court was allowed by the learned District Judge on 3.8.2010. Learned District Judge held that suit land was owned by Ritu Udhyog Association. The agreement to sell was executed by Ritu Udhyog Association through its Manager, Ashwani Kumarhusband of the appellant. Sale deed of suit land could be executed by the owner of suit land, who was not impleaded as a party to the lis. The suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff was held to be not maintainable against the defendant. It is in the aforesaid background that present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 3. Vide order dated 26.11.2010, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. The suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff was held to be not maintainable against the defendant. It is in the aforesaid background that present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 3. Vide order dated 26.11.2010, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether material admissions about the claim of the appellant on the part of respondent have wrongly been ignored? 2. Whether Ld. District Judge has acted illegally and he has mis-read and mis-construed pleadings of the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence on record? 3. That whether well reasoned judgment recorded by Ld. trial court has wrongly been upset and since there were no legal and valid grounds, therefore, the Ld. District Judge below was not justified in interfering with the same?” 4. Contentions Learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was well reasoned and in consonance with the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, whereas the learned District Judge reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on grounds which were not pleaded by the defendant. That the defendant had admitted the contents of the plaint wherein plaintiff had pleaded that the suit land was owned by her husband. That subsequent to the death of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, mutation of suit land was attested in favour of defendant. The defendant did not plead Ritu Udhyog’s ownership over the suit property, therefore, she could neither be allowed to put forward this plea nor the evidence led by her in this regard could be considered. In support of such submissions, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/appellant referred to the oral evidence adduced by the parties as well as the documentary evidence placed on record. Learned senior counsel cited various judgments on the above points. Learned senior counsel for the respondent/defendant argued that it was for the plaintiff to prove the case pleaded by him. On the basis of various documents on record and the oral evidence adduced by the parties, it was contended that plaintiff had miserably failed to prove his pleaded case. The agreement for specific performance for which the suit was filed by the plaintiff was allegedly executed by him with Ritu Udhyog Association. The suit was not maintainable against the defendant. 5. The agreement for specific performance for which the suit was filed by the plaintiff was allegedly executed by him with Ritu Udhyog Association. The suit was not maintainable against the defendant. 5. Observations The substantial questions of law formulated in instant appeal relate to factual aspects of the matter and can be answered on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record. 5(i) The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement dated 20.2.1996. It was also his case that subsequent to this agreement, another agreement was executed on 31.12.1996 to the effect that the sale deed of the suit land would be executed by 31.3.1997. The defendant has denied the execution of these agreements by her husband for want of knowledge. The agreements have been put forward by the plaintiff. A bare perusal of the agreement dated 20.2.1996 (Ex. PW1/A) shows that this was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the Ritu Udhyog Association, Dugga Khurd, Tehsil and District Hamirpur though its Manager Shri Ashwani Kumar. The averments in the body of the agreement reflect that the agreement was executed by the Ritu Udhyog as owner in possession of the suit land. Shri Ashwani Kumar had signed the document as Manager of the Ritu Udhyog Association for the owner-Ritu Udhyog. The subsequent agreement dated 31.7.1996 (Ex. PW1/B) was executed in favour of plaintiff again by the Ritu Udhyog Association, Dugga Khurd, Tehsil and District Hamirpur through its Manager Shri Ashwani Kumar. This agreement also has been signed by Shri Ashwani Kumar as Manager of the Ritu Udhyog Association for the owner Ritu Udhyog. It is, therefore, obvious that the agreements were not executed by Shri Ashwani Kumar in his individual capacity. Agreements were executed by the Ritu Udhyog Association through its Manager Ashwani Kumar. The executant of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff was the Ritu Udhyog Association. 5(ii) The jamabandi for the year 1991-92 (Ex. P1) reflects that suit land had 24 shares out of which 16 shares were owned by the Ritu Udhyog Association, Dugga Khurd, Tehsil and District Hamirpur through its Manager Ashwani Kumar in Khasra No. 7 and 4 shares in Khasra No. 6. Same position is reflected in Ex. P1 i.e. ‘misal hakiyat’ for the year 1992-93. 5(iii) Shri Ashwani Kumar died on 26.1.1997. The remarks column on jamabandi for the year 1992-93 (Ex. Same position is reflected in Ex. P1 i.e. ‘misal hakiyat’ for the year 1992-93. 5(iii) Shri Ashwani Kumar died on 26.1.1997. The remarks column on jamabandi for the year 1992-93 (Ex. PZ) reflect that vide mutation No. 274 attested on 24.4.1999 the Ritu Udhyog Association through Smt. Meena Kumari widow of Shri Ashwani Kumar was entered as co-owner of the suit land. In the subsequent jamabandi on record for the year 2002-2003 (Ex. PY), the Ritu Udhyog Association through Smt. Meena Kumari, widow of Shri Ashwani Kumar was reflected as coowner of the suit land. 5(iv) Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 6 SCC 733 , titled Kasturi versus Iyyamperumal and others held that necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of the 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. Necessary parties are those 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. Relevant paras from the judgment are extracted hereinafter: “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. 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.” The judgment in Kasturi’s case supra was considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2020) 13 SCC 773 , titled Gurmit Singh Bhatia versus Kiran Kant Robinson and Others. Relevant paras from the judgment are as under: “5.4. In the aforesaid decision in Kasturi, it was contended on behalf of the third parties that they are in possession of the suit property on the basis of their independent title to the same and as the plaintiff had also claimed the relief of possession in the plaint and the issue with regard to possession is common to the parties including the third parties, and therefore, the same can be settled in the suit itself. It was further submitted on behalf of the third parties that to avoid the multiplicity of the suits, it would be appropriate to join them as party defendants. This Court did not accept the aforesaid submission by observing that merely in order to find out who is in possession of the contracted property, a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added in a suit for specific performance of the contract to sell because they are not necessary parties as there was no semblance of right to some relief against the party to the contract. It is further observed and held that in a suit for specific performance of the contract to sell the lis between the vendor and the persons in whose favour agreement to sell is executed shall only be gone into and it is also not open to the Court to decide whether any other parties have acquired any title and possession of the contracted property. 5.5. It is further observed and held by this Court in Kasturi that if the plaintiff who has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract to sell, even after receiving the notice of claim of title and possession by other persons (not parties to the suit and even not parties to the agreement to sell for which a decree for specific performance is sought) does not want to join them in the pending suit, it is always done at the risk of the plaintiff because he cannot be forced to join the third parties as party-defendants in such suit. The aforesaid observations are made by this Court considering the principle that plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.” 5(v) In the instant case, the agreements dated 20.2.1996 and 31.7.1996 sought to be executed by the plaintiff against the defendant were actually executed with him by the Ritu Udhyog Association through its Manager Shri Ashwani Kumar. The agreements have been set up by the plaintiff himself. In these agreements the Ritu Udhyog Association has been shown as owner in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff while executing the agreements was aware of the ownership of the Ritu Udhyog Association over the suit land. The jamabandi for the year 1992- 93 was mentioned in the agreement wherein Ritu Udhyog figures as owner of the suit land alongwith others. Plaintiff had executed the agreements with the owner of suit land i.e. Ritu Udhyog Association. He admitted this fact while deposing as PW-1. Alleged admission of defendant with respect to Ashwani Kumar being owner of suit land will not advance the case of plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed the civil suit seeking decree for specific performance of the agreements against the defendant who is widow of Shri Ashwani Kumar. He admitted this fact while deposing as PW-1. Alleged admission of defendant with respect to Ashwani Kumar being owner of suit land will not advance the case of plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed the civil suit seeking decree for specific performance of the agreements against the defendant who is widow of Shri Ashwani Kumar. The suit for specific performance was not maintainable against the defendant as the agreements in question were executed on behalf of owner Ritu Udhyog Association by its Manager Shri Ashwani Kumar. The agreements wee not executed by Shri Ashwani Kumar in his personal capacity. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable against the widow of Shri Ashwani Kumar. In the revenue record, the Ritu Udhyog Association through Smt. Meena Kumari, widow of Shri Ashwani Kumar is reflected as co-owner of the suit land along with several others. The ownership of the property in question continues in the name of the Ritu Udhyog Association. Therefore, learned Appellate Court was justified in observing that the suit was required to be filed against the owner. The defendant as widow of Shri Ashwani Kumar could not have executed the sale deed. Accordingly, all questions of law as extracted in para-3 are decided against the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, I find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.