ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in IA.No.1175 of 2022 in OS.No.139 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, the present Revision Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. G.Sindhu, learned counsel on record for revision petitioners, and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 3, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are proposed defendants, respondent No.6 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.7 to 10 are defendant Nos.4 to 7 in the suit. It appears that during pendency of this Revision Petition, respondent No.5 expired and as such, his legal heirs were brought on record as respondent Nos.11 to 13. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.6 filed the suit in OS.No.139 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy for specific performance against the revision petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 10 herein and the suit was pending adjudication. While so, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein filed an application in I.A.No.1175 of 2022 to implead themselves as defendants in the suit. In the said application, it was averred that the suit schedule property was purchased by their ancestor by name Jonnada Mallaiah under unregistered sale deed dated 20.04.1958 and that they are in actual physical possession of the suit schedule property; that they have also filed an application before the Revenue Authority for regularisation of the said unregistered sale deed/Sada Bainama and the same is pending adjudication and therefore, they have right and interest in the suit schedule property. They further averred that defendant Nos.1 to 7 without any valid title to the suit schedule property have entered into agreement of sale with third parties and as such, they are necessary parties to the suit since their rights will be affected and hence, prayed to implead them as parties to the suit. 5. The petitioners herein resisted the said application, however, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 19.10.2023 allowed the said application with a condition that the proposed defendants have to confine their version only to the suit pleadings and that they are prohibited to putforth their claim and title, which may change the nature of the suit completely. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that in a suit for specific performance, one has to establish the title of person who entered into agreement of sale in favour of the purchaser, and it is settled principle that third parties are not necessary parties in the light of nature of the suit. He further submitted that the two judgments referred to and relied upon by the trial Court in the impugned order, i.e., judgment of Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Company and others , [ (2007) 10 SCC 82 ] and the judgment of High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.1621 of 2022 , dated 13.09.2022 (Chinnaswamy Gowda Vs. Shivaramu C.M. and others), the title of the proposed parties therein was clear and therefore, they were permitted to be brought on record. However, in the present case, the proposed defendants are claiming title under unregistered sale deed i.e., Sada bainama which does not confer any title and as such, they have to work out their remedies separately and considering the said aspect, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application. Learned counsel further submitted that plaintiff remained ex parte in the implead application, which clearly show that he is hand in glove with the proposed defendants and hence, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application on that ground also and finally, prayed to allow this Revision Petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 4 submitted that the trial Court, by duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly allowed the application. He further submitted that while allowing the application, the trial Court has imposed certain conditions that the proposed parties have to confine their version only to the suit pleadings and they are prohibited from putting forth their claim and title which may change the nature of the suit schedule property, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners herein if the proposed defendants are brought on record. He finally contended that Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. He finally contended that Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the trial Court by referring to and relying upon the judgments in Sumtibai’s case (cited supra) and Chinnaswamy Gowda’s case (cited supra), has allowed the application on the ground that since the proposed parties are claiming rights over the suit schedule property, their rights also would be affected and as such, they are necessary parties to the suit. 9. It is relevant to note that in the application filed to implead the proposed parties as defendants to the suit, it is contended that the ancestor of the proposed parties have purchased the suit schedule property under unregistered sale deed/Sada Bainama dated 20.4.1958 and an application filed for regularization of the said document is pending, and that the plaintiff colluded with defendant Nos.1 to 4 and filed the aforesaid suit to knock away the suit schedule property belonging to the proposed defendants. 10. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Sada bainama is dated 20.04.1958, however, the proposed defendants except stating that an application is filed for regularization of the said document and the same is pending consideration, have failed to furnish any details as to the date of submission of application for regularization of the said Sada bainama or any other steps taken by them, etc. Thus, the proposed defendants failed to place on record any material evidencing their title to the suit schedule property. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the judgments relied upon by the trial Court in the impugned order, i.e., in Sumtibai’s case (cited supra) and Chinnaswamy Gowda’s case (cited supra), the title of the proposed parties is clear and evident, whereas in the present case, the proposed defendants are claiming rights in the suit schedule property under Sada bainama dated 20.04.1958 and admittedly, the said Sada bainama was not yet been regularized. 11. As regards this issue, it is apt to refer to the judgment rendered by Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi Vs. 11. As regards this issue, it is apt to refer to the judgment rendered by Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others , [ (2005) 6 SCC 733 ] , wherein it is held that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the lis between vendor and person(s) in whose favour agreement of sale is executed was only to be gone into and it is also not open to the Court to decide whether any other party or parties have acquired any title and possession over the contracted property. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that parties claiming independent title and possession adverse to the tile of the vendor and not on the basis of the contract are not proper parties and if such party is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance shall be enlarged to a suit for title and possession which is impermissible. 12. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi’s case (cited supra), the application filed by the proposed defendants ought to have been dismissed by the trial Court since the said proposed parties are claiming independent title to the suit schedule property basing on Sada bainama, that too, which is said to have been executed way back in the year 1958, i.e., on 20.04.1958 and which is, admittedly, not yet been regularized. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons and the legal position, the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity and irregularity and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed in IA.No.1175 of 2022 in OS.No.139 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, is set aside. 15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.