ORDER : Chillakur Sumalatha, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking the Court to permit the petitioners/proposed parties to come on record as respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to the appeal. 2. Heard Ms. P. Krishna Keertana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 13. 3. Making her submission, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property and thus, as their interest is involved, they may be permitted to come on record as parties to the appeal. 4. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are the appellants to the appeal, states that the petitioners are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to the appeal and therefore, this application is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 13 submits that the petitioners are not the subsequent purchasers. Learned counsel states that indeed, an interim order was granted restraining the appellants from alienating the property to third parties and in the case on hand, even as per the version of the petitioners, they are not the subsequent purchasers. Learned counsel submits that in a suit for specific performance, the subsequent parties can neither be necessary parties nor proper parties and thus, the application is not maintainable. 6. In the affidavit given in support of the application, petitioner No. 1/proposed party No. 1 states that the present appeal is filed in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 8.31 guntas in Survey No. 27 of Chinna Gottimukla Village, agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 319, agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 0.17 guntas in Survey No. 323 and agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 4.10 guntas in Survey No. 322, all located at Peddagottimukla Village, which is referred as plaint 'A' schedule property and also in respect of land admeasuring Acs. 11.06 guntas in Survey No. 321 located at Peddagottimukla Village, which is referred as plaint 'B' schedule property. He stated that the appellants approached them by stating that they would alienate the entire property and therefore, himself and proposed party No. 2 agreed to purchase the said property and paid advance. 11.06 guntas in Survey No. 321 located at Peddagottimukla Village, which is referred as plaint 'B' schedule property. He stated that the appellants approached them by stating that they would alienate the entire property and therefore, himself and proposed party No. 2 agreed to purchase the said property and paid advance. Subsequently, they came to know that the lands agreed to be sold to them are in dispute and that, First Appeal is pending before this Court. Thus, they are proper and necessary parties to the appeal and therefore, they may be permitted to come on record as respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to the appeal. 7. Thus, by the contents of the affidavit, it is clear that title did not pass to the proposed parties in respect of the suit schedule property. Their own version is that there is an agreement of sale of the alleged property between them and the appellants. 8. Though making her submission that the parties for getting their rights protected, are entitled to come on record, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others AIR 1958 SC 886 , nowhere in the said decision, it is indicated that in an appeal which is based on the suit for specific performance, the subsequent agreement holders are necessary parties. 9. Admittedly, a necessary party is a party in whose absence no effective decree can be passed by the Court of law. 10. Making a submission that a stranger to the contract cannot become a necessary party in a suit for specific performance and to the appeal which arises therefrom, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others (2005)6 SCC 733 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 14 of the judgment held as follows:- "14. Keeping the principles as stated above in mind, let us now, on the admitted facts of this case, first consider whether Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are necessary parties or not. In our opinion, respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are not necessary parties as an effective decree could be passed in their absence as they had not purchased the contracted property from the vendor after the contract was entered into. In our opinion, respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are not necessary parties as an effective decree could be passed in their absence as they had not purchased the contracted property from the vendor after the contract was entered into. They were also not necessary parties as they would not be affected by the contract entered into between the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3. In the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra [ (1995) 3 SCC 147 ], it has been held that: since the applicant who sought for his addition is not a party to the agreement for sale, it cannot be said that in his absence, the dispute as to specific performance cannot be decided. In this case at para 9, the Supreme Court while deciding whether a person is a necessary party or not in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale made the following observation: (SCC p. 150) "Since the respondent is not a party to the agreement of sale, it cannot be said that without his presence the dispute as to specific performance cannot be determined. Therefore, he is not a necessary party." Further, at para 15 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:- "15........ In the case of Vijay Pratap v. Sambhu Saran Sinha [ (1996) 10 SCC 53 ] this Court had taken the same view which is being taken by us in this judgment as discussed above. This Court in that decision clearly held that to decide the right, title and interest in the suit property of the stranger to the contract is beyond the scope of the suit for specific performance of the contract and the same cannot be turned into a regular title suit." Also, at para 18 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "18. That apart, there is another principle which cannot also be forgotten. The appellant, who has filed the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for sale is dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law, as already discussed above." 11. On the same proposition, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. On the same proposition, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others (2020) 13 SCC 773 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paras 5.5 and 5.6 of the judgment, and further relying upon the decision which is referred supra, held as under:- "5.5. It is further observed and held by this Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, { (2005) 6 SCC 733 } 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, the 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. 5.6. Therefore, considering the decision of this Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, { (2005) 6 SCC 733 }, the appellant cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the original plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract between the original plaintiffs and original Defendant 1 and in a suit for specific performance of the contract, to which the appellant is not a party and that too against, the wish of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot be forced to add party against whom he does not want to fight. If he does so, in that case, it will be at the risk of the plaintiffs." 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 13 enunciating the same proposition, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and Others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and Others (2012) 8 SCC 384 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 41 of the judgment gave the following findings: "41. 5 to 13 enunciating the same proposition, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and Others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and Others (2012) 8 SCC 384 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 41 of the judgment gave the following findings: "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." 13. Thus, it is abundantly clear that a necessary party is one without whom, an effective order cannot be passed. Likewise, a proper party is one in whose absence though an effective order can be made, whose presence is necessary for complete adjudication and final decision on the issues involved. 14. Thus, it is abundantly clear that a necessary party is one without whom, an effective order cannot be passed. Likewise, a proper party is one in whose absence though an effective order can be made, whose presence is necessary for complete adjudication and final decision on the issues involved. 14. In the case on hand, this Court is of the view that the proposed parties i.e., the petitioners herein who base their origin from a subsequent agreement of sale, that too pending lis are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to the appeal. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to come on record as respondents to the appeal. 15. Resultantly, this interlocutory application is dismissed.