1. These two petitions have been posted for argument on the question of maintainability raised by the Registry. One application is for impleading the petitioner as a party to the O.S. Appeal and the second petition is for the direction to respondents 11 to 16 to execute a sale deed to and in favour of the petitioner as nominee of the first respondent. O.S. Appeal No. 179 of 1989 arises under the following circumstances; The appellants in O.S.A. No. 179 of 1989 (respondents 1 to 6 in C.M.P.), as owners of the land on which the cinema theatre (Sri Krishna Talkies) had been built filed O.S.No.471 of 1986 against the partners of the “Sri Krishna Talkies” (respondents 7 to 21 in C.M.P.) for recovery of possession of the site. Respondents 7 to 21 as defendants claimed rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922. By an order dated 18.8.1988 this Court declared the right of respondents 7 to 21 to purchase the site. This order dated 18.8.1988 was taken up on appeal by respondents 1 to 6 in the above O.S. Appeal. The O.S. Appeal was finally disposed of on 6.10.1989 fixing the value of the site as Rs. 63,93,600 and respondents 7 to 21 were directed to pay the said amount in instalments. The entire payment was to be completed by 31.12.1991.
2. The allegation of the petitioner is that respondents 7 to 21 had entered into an agreement with the petitioner and it is with the help of the petitioner that they paid the amount as fixed by this Court on 6.10.1989. The petitioner bases his claim on the terms and conditions of a sale agreement dated 25.4.1991 between respondents 7 to 21 and the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he should be nominated as the purchaser by respondents 7 to 21, in the event of the decree in O.S.No.471 of 1986 being given effect to. The warrant for filing this petition to implead the petitioner as a party in the O.S. Appeal, is the difference of opinion that has developed between respondents 7 to 21 and the petitioner in respect of the said agreement dated 25.4.1991. While respondents 7 to 21 are treating the amounts as a loan, the petitioner is treating the amount as payment of price under the sale agreement dated 25.4.1991.
3. We have no doubt in our mind that the dispute relating to the agreement dated 25.4.1991 is wholly extraneous to the said O.S.No.471 of 1986 and O.S.A.No.179 of 1989 arising therefrom. It is needless to point out that the petitioner has to agitate his right, if any, through independent proceedings. Apparently the petitioner apprehends that if respondents 7 to 21 get the sale deed executed in their favour as per the decree in O.S.No.471 of 1986 his rights will be prejudiced. It is for the petitioner to work out his rights if any, by taking separate proceedings.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision in C.K.R.C.N.K.R. Adhappa Chettiar v. R.M. Meenakshi Achi 96 L.W. 652, in support of the case of the petitioner. That was a case where the purchaser applied for impleading himself as a party in an appeal which was pending. That decision will not apply to the facts of the present case. Similarly in Rathinavel Chettiar v. Sakunthala 100 L.W. 1011, has no relevance to the issue involved in this case. A perusal of the facts in Nallathambi Goundan v. Vijaya Raghavan (1972)2M.L.J. 535 : 85 L.W. 648, shows that the court has not laid down any proposition that a subsequent agreement holder can implied himself in a suit which has already been disposed of Paragraph 19 of the said judgment does not in any way support the case of the petitioner. It must be remembered that the petitioner in this case is not even a purchaser but a mere agreement holder. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 471 of 1986 cannot be forced to fight the case of such agreement h8lders who entered into an agreement with the defendants long after the disposal of the suit. We have no hesitation in dismissing this petition.
5. We are however, inclined to direct that the sale deed in favour of respondents 7 to 21 shall be executed by respondents 1 to 5 in accordance with the order in O.S. Appeal No. 179 of 1989 only after 30 days from today giving enough time to the petitioner herein to work out his’ rights if any, under the agreement dated 25.4.1991. We therefore hold that these petitions are not maintainable.