ORDER : 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.335 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2015. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed I.A.No.335 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2015 to implead them in the suit as defendant Nos.6 and 7 being the successors of the suit schedule property and other properties from their grandmother [defendant No.1]. G.Narsimha Goud, who is one of the GPA holders of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioners sworn the affidavit and contended that the grandmother of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioners by name Jangam Marthamma w/o. late J.Rajaratnam was the absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing Survey No.341, admeasuring Ac.1-34 gts; Survey No.345 to an extent of Ac.1-27 gts, total admeasuring Ac.3-21 gts situated at Peddamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. During her life time, she executed a registered will deed bearing document No.78/III/2019 dated 28.03.2019 bequeathing the above said land and other properties in favour of the respondents herein – petitioners. Jangam Marthamma (defendant No.1) expired on 06.07.2019 and thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - petitioners have succeeded to the above said lands and other properties by virtue of the will deed. On 10.04.2022, respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 went to the office of the Tahsildar of Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of mutation of their names in respect of the above said properties and VRO, Peddamangalaram village advised them to make an application for mutation in Mee seva, on the same day, respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1 has obtained EC and he was shocked to know that Mohd.Mohiuddin, [proprietor of the plaintiff - petitioner herein] has created two registered sale deeds in respect of the properties to an extent of Ac.1-24 gts vide document No.1746/2008 dated 21.04.2008 for an extent of Ac.0-20 gts., in Survey Nos.341 and 345 and vide document No.1802 of 2008, dated 25.08.2008 for an extent of Ac.1-04 gts in Survey Nos.341 and 345. Basing on the sale deeds petitioner herein – plaintiff brought into existence several sale deeds in favour of third parties. Basing on the sale deeds petitioner herein – plaintiff brought into existence several sale deeds in favour of third parties. Further, respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 shocked to know that mutation application could not be received as the lands were put in prohibitory list on account of a Court order in the above suit. Respondent No.2-petitioner No.2 is in London and the respondent No.1-petitioner No.1 is preoccupied with his business, as such he is unable to look after the above said properties personally and they executed a GPA on 03.08.2022. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit and they may be brought on record as defendant Nos.6 and 7. 3. Petitioner herein - respondent No.1 in I.A.No.335 of 2023 filed counter and contended that they purchased total land admeasuring Ac.3-03 guntas from J.Marathamma, out of which, she has executed two registered sale deeds in part i.e., Ac.0-20 gts and Ac.1-04 gts vide two registered sale deed document Nos.1746/2008, dated 21.04.2008 and 1802/2008, dated 25.08.2008 in Survey Nos.341 and 345. J.Marthamma had signed two other sale deeds to an extent of Ac.0-39 guntas and Ac.0-20 guntas on 25.08.2008 but evaded to appear before the SRO having received entire sale consideration from Mohammad Mohiuddin. Therefore, he filed a suit for specific performance. J.Marathamma already filed written statement in the above suit on 30.07.2018, having knowledge of interim injunction orders it is not possible for J.Marathamma to execute alleged will deed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioners. It is clear that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - petitioners have created forged will deed by impersonating J.Marathamma and they colluded together and created false will deed in the year 2019 during pendency of the above suit. They are not proper parties to the proceedings and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. The Trial Court after going through the material on record has allowed I.A.No.335 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2015 on 04.07.2023 permitting the petitioners therein (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) to implead them as defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the suit, which is the impugned order. 5. It is mentioned in the cause title of the present Civil Revision Petition that respondent Nos.4 to 7 are not necessary parties. 6. 5. It is mentioned in the cause title of the present Civil Revision Petition that respondent Nos.4 to 7 are not necessary parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff submits that trial Court failed to consider that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioners found the registered sale deeds in EC on 10.04.2022 in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and failed to advise the respondents that the suit is for specific performance and not for declaration. In fact, out of four sale deeds the grand-mother of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., J.Marathamma executed two registered sale deeds and for balance two sale deeds she refused to perform part of contract. The trial Court failed to see that J.Marathamma filed written statement in the suit on 30.07.2018 and there is an injunction order from alienating the suit property, in spite of said orders she has executed registered will deed in the year 2019 in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court failed to consider that daughters of J.Marathamma have adopted the written statement filed by her but they did not say about the execution of the will deed and also failed to consider that there is a partition suit bearing O.S.No.14 of 2016 in the very same court and they are agitating their rights through will deed. The Trial Court failed to consider that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioners did not file implead petition in the partition suit in O.S.No.14 of 2016 but to pressurize the vendee-petitioner herein to settle the same in terms of money. The petitioner – plaintiff is dominus litis and no person can be impleaded against his will and wish. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and others , 2022 (6) ALD 140 (SC) and (2) Kolli Sita Rama Swamy Naidu vs. T. Padma Rao @ Padma and others , 2022 (6) ALD 561 (AP) and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 7. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is served vide USR.Nos.80325/2023, dated 17.08.2023, however none appears for them. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material. 9. 7. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is served vide USR.Nos.80325/2023, dated 17.08.2023, however none appears for them. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material. 9. Now the point for consideration is: whether the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, R.R. District, in I.A.No.335 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2015 dated 04.07.2023 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court or not. 10. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K. Valarmathi and Others vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 11. The petitioner- plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.137 of 2015 against J.Marathamma for specific performance of contract in respect of unregistered sale deed dated 25.08.2008 pertaining to (i) Schedule – A Property i.e., All that the agricultural land bearing Survey No.341 and 345 admeasuring Ac.0-39 gts situated at Pedda Mangalaram village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District being bounded as North: Neighbour’s land (farm house), South: Neighbours land of Veera Reddy, East: Land in Survey No.341 part, 345 part, West: Land in Survey No.341 part, 345 part and (ii) Schedule – B Property i.e., All that the agricultural land bearing Survey No.341 and 345 admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas situated at Pedda Mangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District being bounded as North: Neighbour’s land (farm house), South: Neighbours land of Veera Reddy, East: Land in Survey No.341 part, 345 part, West: Land in Survey No.341 part, 345 part. 12. J.Marathamma has filed her written statement and contended that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and denied the contents of the plaint and also the registered sale deed dated 21.04.2008 vide document No.1746/2008 and registered sale deed dated 25.08.2008 vide document No.1802/2008. Apart from the above she denied the execution of unregistered sale deed dated 25.08.2008 and has not received entire sale consideration from the plaintiff. 13. Apart from the above she denied the execution of unregistered sale deed dated 25.08.2008 and has not received entire sale consideration from the plaintiff. 13. During the pendency of the suit J.Marathamma died and her legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 to 5 vide I.A.No.413 of 2022, dated 10.01.2023 who are the respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein. Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 have adopted written statement filed by J.Marathamma. 14. On perusal of the registered will deed dated 28.03.2019 executed by J.Marathamma [D1] in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioners, she as bequeathed land in survey No.341/1, admeasuring Ac.1-34 guntas and survey No.345, land admeasuring Ac.1-27 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.3-21 guntas situated at Peddamangalaram Village of Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also bequeathed House No.3-46, admeasuring 350 sq.yds situated at Aziz Nagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3-21 gts is forming part of Survey No.341 and 345, which are shown in schedule A and B properties in the plaint. 15. It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that there was an interim order against J.Marathamma to not to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties, in spite of it she has executed registered will deed dated 28.03.2019 during pendency of the case and that the petitioners have no right or interest over the same. 16.1 In Sudhamayee Pattnaik’s case, Supreme Court held that plaintiffs are Dominus litis – Unless court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order I Rule 10 of CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of plaintiffs – Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in application submitted by original defendants, that too against wish of plaintiffs. 16.2 Above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner is for specific performance of contract whereas in the above said decision it was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. 16.2 Above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner is for specific performance of contract whereas in the above said decision it was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. 17.1 In Kolli Sita Rama Swamy Naidu’s case the High Court held that ‘to secure relief in suit, plaintiff has to establish execution of registered Will beyond all reasonable doubt in terms of law – And can succeed only if Court comes to conclusion that Will is genuine – For effective adjudication of controversies involved in matter, impleadment of petitioner and his two sons, not necessary – Decree can be passed, even in absence of petitioner and his two sons – Their impleadment as parties would enlarge scope and change nature of suit – Plaintiff being ‘dominus litis’ cannot be forced to join parties against whom no relief is sought for’. 17.2 There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the above said decision. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Jangam Sabitha and Rani has filed suit in O.S.NO.14 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad against J.Marathamma and others for allotment of house share to the plaintiffs therein [Sabitha] in respect of agricultural land bearing survey No.341/RUU admeasuring Ac.2-34 guntas and Survey No.345 admeasuring Ac.1-27 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.4-21 guntas. 19. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC states as under: “(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.” 20. As the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioners contended that they acquired the property by way of a registered will executed by J.Marathamma and the other legal heirs of J.Marathamma are contesting the suit tooth and nail contended that unregistered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner dated 25.08.2008 are not executed. 21. Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Others , (2005) 6 SCC 733 held at paragraph Nos.7, 13 and 20 as under: “7. … 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 same 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. … 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. … 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 herein-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.” 22. A proper party is an individual, whose presence would assist the Court in a complete and final adjudication. A proper party is an individual, whose presence would assist the Court in a complete and final adjudication. A person claiming under a will is a transferees pendente lite if the will is executed during the pendency of the suit and they are considered representatives in interest of the original party and can generally be impleaded to protect their interest although they did not have any automatic right to be added. The order restraining a party from alienating the property does not make the will and subsequent transfer automatically avoided instead it makes the transfer sub-servant to the outcome of the suit. 23. Any transfer of the property during the pendency of the suit is subject to the final outcome of the Court, the purpose is not to annul transfer but to render in effective against the decreetal. Transferring property in violation of an injunction order does not nullify legal status of the legatees or transferees and they can still be impleaded and the legatees are proper parties, whose presence allows the complete adjudication of the issue. The injunction only makes transfer subject to the Court’s final order and the Court can evolve whether the transfer under the will was validly made despite the injunction but the legatees are still bound by the result of the specific performance suit. 24. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kasturi’s case respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit. 25. The Trial Court has observed in paragraph No.11 that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioners are necessary parties to the suit and without whom all questions involved in the suit cannot be settled. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly allowed the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – petitioner to implead them as defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the suit and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 26. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stands vacated, miscellaneous application/s, if any, shall stand closed.