Impleadment in specific performance suits depends on necessity for complete adjudication, not on an independent later-acquired property interest.

A person who acquires an independent interest in property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance, but was not a party to the sale agreement, is not automatically entitled to be impleaded. Order 22 Rule 10 applies only where there is devolution, assignment or creation of interest in the subject matter of the suit, and an independent decree of co-ownership did not satisfy that requirement on these facts. Order 1 Rule 10(2) turns on whether the person's presence is necessary for complete adjudication; here, no relief was claimed against the respondent and the contractual dispute could be decided between the original parties, so she was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person who acquires an interest in the property during pendency of a suit for specific performance, but was not a party to the contract of sale, is a necessary or proper party and can be impleaded under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: A person can be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 only where there is devolution, assignment or creation of interest during the pendency of the suit. An independent decree declaring co-ownership does not amount to such devolution in the context of the agreement sued upon. Order 1 Rule 3 applies where relief arises out of the same transaction and common questions arise, but a suit for specific performance is founded on the contract between the original parties, and a subsequent interest acquired by decree does not arise from that transaction. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2), joinder depends on whether the person's presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate the questions in the suit. In a specific performance action, the court is concerned with execution of the agreement and compliance with the requirements for granting that relief. Since the respondent was not a party to the agreement and no relief was claimed against her, her presence was not necessary for deciding the suit. She was also not a proper party on the facts of the case. The Court distinguished cases where later transferees or persons claiming a legal status may be proper parties, and held those principles inapplicable here.

Conclusion: The respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party, and the refusal to implead her was . The challenge to the refusal to add her as a defendant failed.

Final Conclusion: The application for impleadment in the specific performance suit was not maintainable on the facts, and the refusal to interfere with the orders below was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, a person who was not a party to the agreement and whose interest arose independently during pendency of the suit is neither a necessary nor a proper party unless his presence is essential for complete adjudication of the contractual dispute.

---