15 “ In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not agree with the view taken by Krishnan, J. (as he then was) in Roopkishore and others v. Tarabai and others (supra). The learned Judge has based his view on the ground that if the person claiming adversely to the vendors are not joined as parties in the suit, there would be a problem of possession and therefore, in the interest of the purchaser plaintiff and to avoid the multiplicity of suits, he is a proper party. But, in our opinion these are not the valid considerations. If the plaintiff, even after notice of claim of title hostile to his vendor by an intervener, does not want to join the intervener, he takes the risk. He cannot be forced upon to join the intervener. We are in agreement with the view taken by Bhargava, J. (as he then was) in Gananandrao v. Babulal and others (supra) that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale in respect of a property against the defendant, some person who applies for being impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that he has a right by birth in the suit property, cannot be joined as a party under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code, because if such a person was allowed to intervene in the suit as a party, the nature of the suit will change from a suit for specific performance of a contract to that of a suit for title. It has further been held that the proper course is to institute another suit for title, impleading parties to the suit in which the interveners had prayed for being joined as a party."
