ORDER : 1. The question that arises in this civil revision is whether a person holding an agreement for sale executed by the owner of the property is a necessary or proper party in a suit filed for declaration that a General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement for sale executed by the plaintiff in favour of three defendants is vitiated by fraud and as a consequence the subsequent sale transactions in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are void (O.S. No. 13/2016). 2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India this civil revision petition is filed questioning the correctness of Order dated 25.06.2019 of learned X Additional District Judge, Narasapur in I.A. No. 57 of 2019 in O.S. No. 13 of 2016. 3. Respondent No. 1 is plaintiff in O.S. No. 13 of 2016. Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 13 of 2016. To the said suit in O.S. No. 13 of 2016 the present revision petitioners are third parties. They filed I.A. No. 57 of 2019 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking for their impleadment in O.S. No. 13 of 2016. After due contest and hearing the learned trial Court decided against them stating that they are neither necessary nor proper parties. It dismissed the petition prompting the third party petitioners to come up by this revision. 4. The following facts are relevant for consideration: Sri Yallapu Abbulu filed O.S. No. 13 of 2016 stating that he owns and possesses plaint schedule property which is Siva Parvathi DTS Theater at Palakollu and in the context of borrowing money from Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 he was made to execute a General Power of-cum-agreement for sale in their favour and thereafter Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 sold out the property to Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 and it is in those circumstances, he filed the suit to declare the said GPA-cum-agreement for sale dated 5-8-2009 is vitiated by fraud and consequently to set-aside the subsequent transactions as void. 5. Defendants in the said suit put in their defence and suit went for trial and while the defendants were adducing their evidence third parties came up with petition and by the time the petition was decided by the trial Court, the original suit reached the stage of hearing arguments on both sides. 6. 5. Defendants in the said suit put in their defence and suit went for trial and while the defendants were adducing their evidence third parties came up with petition and by the time the petition was decided by the trial Court, the original suit reached the stage of hearing arguments on both sides. 6. Four individuals filed O.S. No. 40 of 2017 before the Additional District Judge, Narsapur as against Sri Yallapu Abbulu (the said Yallapu Abbulu is the plaintiff in the earlier refereed O.S. No. 13 of 2016) alleging that for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. Sri Yallapu Abbulu agreed to sell Sree Lakshmi Sai Chitralaya Theatre, Palakollu and received best part of consideration and executed agreement for sale dated 27-03-2008. Since he was not coming forward for completion of his obligations the suit was filed seeking for specific performance of that agreement for sale directing Sri Yallapu Abbulu to execute registered sale deed in favour of the agreement holders and alternatively prayed for refund of money. 7. Thus, it seems both the suits are pending before the learned X Additional District Judge, Narsapur. 8. The four individuals who filed the suit for specific performance sought for their impleadment in the suit filed by Sri Yallapu Abbulu against the GPA holders and others in their application I.A. No. 57 of 2019 they stated that the property disputed in both the suits is one and the same and over that property this third party impleading petitioners have got subsisting interest and therefore they seek for their impleadment and if it is not granted they would suffer serious loss and damage. 9. That application was contested by Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 who are Respondent Nos.7 and 8 in that I.A. No. 57 of 2019. They contended that this impleading petition is filed only to stall the progress of the suit. The suit for specific performance filed by the impleading petitioners is out of collusion between Sri Yallapu Abbulu and the impleading petitioners. They also detailed a few facts to substantiate that contention and they sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. They contended that this impleading petition is filed only to stall the progress of the suit. The suit for specific performance filed by the impleading petitioners is out of collusion between Sri Yallapu Abbulu and the impleading petitioners. They also detailed a few facts to substantiate that contention and they sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. On hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, the learned trial Court recorded its observations stating that the no material was placed before it to find out whether the property involved in both the suits is one and the same or not and that the petition filed has no averment indicating that the impleading petitioners are either necessary or proper parties and that normally jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. exercised to avoid multiplicity of litigation and from the facts presented before him they indicated that already the impleading petitioners filed a suit for specific performance and therefore their impleadment doesn’t serve in prevention of multiplicity proceedings. It then went on to hold that for the issues that were available for consideration in O.S. No. 13 of 2016 the presence of impleading petitioners is no way helpful. For those reasons it dismissed the petition. 11. Now the impleading petitioners in this revision contended that trial Court failed to understand the scope and significance of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and also the amplitude of Section 151 C.P.C. and failed to notice the substantial interest these petitioners hold over the subject matter of the suits and the other reasons mentioned in the impugned Order have no bearing to take a decision and therefore the impugned Order shall be set-aside and they shall be permitted to join as Defendant Nos. 8 to 11 in O.S. No. 13 of 2016. 12. Learned counsel on both sides submitted their oral arguments. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that property involved in both the suits is one and the same and that fact is not disputed by all parties to the litigation and they hold substantial interest as they parted with Rs. 1,08,00,000/- since they paid it to Sri Yallapu Abbulu and therefore in the suit laid by Sri Yallapu Abbulu they shall be impleaded. 1,08,00,000/- since they paid it to Sri Yallapu Abbulu and therefore in the suit laid by Sri Yallapu Abbulu they shall be impleaded. As against this the learned counsel for respondents submits that participation of these revision petitioners is totally unwarranted and the trial Court appropriately dismissed the petition and the order under challenge doesn’t require any interference. 13. It is in the context of the above rival submissions, the point that falls consideration is: “Whether a person holding an agreement for sale executed by the owner of the property is a necessary or proper party in a suit filed for declaration that a General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement for sale executed by the plaintiff in favour of three defendants is vitiated by fraud and as a consequence the subsequent sale transactions in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are void (O.S. No. 13/2016)?” 14. POINT: Assuming that the property covered by both the suits is one and the same this Court shall proceed further. For the purpose of this litigation Sri Yallapu Abbulu seems to be the title holder. Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times right in or over the same immovable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall be subject to the rights previously created. (vide Section 48 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882). Transfer of ownership by way of sale concerning immovable property shall be by way of registered instrument. An agreement for sale of immovable property does not create any interest over such property. (vide Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882). Cancellation of instruments is provided in Chapter 5 and declarations are made available in Chapter 6, specific performance of agreements is provided in Chapter 2 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Without considering the truth or otherwise of the facts and without considering the merits of the two suits what can be stated is that Sri Yallapu Abbulu on one hand executed a General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement for sale in favour of one set of people and also executed an agreement for sale in favour of another set of people. The persons in whose favour he executed GPA-cum-agreement for sale he filed suit in O.S. No. 13 of 2016 stating that the particular document is vitiated by fraud. The persons in whose favour he executed GPA-cum-agreement for sale he filed suit in O.S. No. 13 of 2016 stating that the particular document is vitiated by fraud. The persons in whose favour he executed an agreement for sale sued him in O.S. No. 40 of 2018. 15. In the suit for enforcement of agreement for sale in O.S. No. 40 of 2018 the plaintiffs expect Sri Yallapu Abbulu to execute registered sale deed. If they find that Sri Yallapu Abbulu do not anymore posses title by virtue of any alienations either made by him or by his authorized agent, those purchasers holding right or interest would become necessary parties in that suit for Specific Performance. That aspect of the matter is not one that is available in this revision. What is available in this revision is, the agreement holders seek to join in a suit between principal and his agents and others. 16. O.S. No. 13 of 2016 raises the questions only between Sri Yallapu Abbulu and his three agents and vendees. The question that is material for consideration is whether the General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement for sale is true and genuine or was it vitiated by fraud. The earlier agreement holders are neither witnesses to the documents nor parties to the documents. Any decision concerning that would in no way effect their rights in their suit for specific performance. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is in accordance with what is contemplated by Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 17. Learned counsel for revision petitioners cited, in support of the contentions certain precedent: (a) Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 . Their Lordships held that addition of a party is within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court and discretion has to be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case. One who holds direct legal interest in the litigation alone could be impleaded. (b) Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited, (2013) 5 SCC 397 . That is a case of specific performance of suit and alienations taking place and impleading the alienee. One who holds direct legal interest in the litigation alone could be impleaded. (b) Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited, (2013) 5 SCC 397 . That is a case of specific performance of suit and alienations taking place and impleading the alienee. It is in that context, their Lordships had to consider Section 52, 54 Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 19 Specific Relief Act and Order XXII Rule 10 and Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. (c) Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 733 . In that case their Lordships held that persons claiming independent title cannot be implead in a suit for specific performance. Persons who had purchased the contracted property with or without notices of earlier contract hold legal interest and they are necessary parties. It is also held that a necessary party is one against whom there must be a right to some relief against him in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings and in his absence no effective decree can be passed. 18. The above ratios when considered in the context of facts on record, the picture that emerges is – a decision as to GPA-cum-agreement for sale is valid or void is a decision that can be arrived at without the presence of this impleading petitioners. The legal rights of impleading petitioners which they have been agitating in their suit for specific performance are in no way affected by whatever decision that could be reached in O.S. No. 13 of 2016 filed by Sri Yallapu Abbulu. Therefore, only on the premise of identity of properties in both the suits the claim of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. The impugned Order indicates the appropriate exercise of discretion by the learned Additional District Judge and the order cannot be called as infirm or causing mis-carriage of justice. Therefore there is no merit in this revision. 19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 25.06.2019 of learned X Additional District Judge, Narsapur in I.A. No. 57 of 2019 in O.S. No. 13 of 2016. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.