effectively. The 1st respondent/plaintiff had knowledge about the sale of property after receipt of reply notice sent by the 2nd respondent/1st defendant, i.e., prior to suit. But the suit was filed without impleading all the parties who executed sale deed in respect of the suit property. Once the sale deed was executed by the parties in respect of the suit property prior to the suit, the 1st respondent/plaintiff ought to have filed the suit by impleading all the parties to sale deed, but the 1st respondent/plaintiff failed to implead all the parties of sale deed as parties to this suit and only implead the purchaser i.e.,Appellant/2nd defendant. In this context, PW1 admitted in his evidence that he came to know about the sale of property through reply notice by the 2nd respondent/1st defendant. The date of reply notice has not been mentioned, however it was sent after sale deed in favour of Appellant/2nd defendant. From the above, it is clear that before filing the suit the 1st respondent/plaintiff had knowledge about the sale deed, but not impleaded all the share holders of the suit property. The sale agreement dated 16.06.1993 was executed by three persons and therefore, the aforesaid persons are necessary parties. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The first Appellate Court, without considering the above said aspects, erroneously decreed the suit directing the 2nd respondent/1st defendant to execute sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff.
