no title to the property have confirmed the plaintiffs title have been described as confirming party and the present appellant is one of them who has singed the agreement. Now, therefore, whether he is entitled to 20 per cent or not is a question between the plaintiff and the present appellant. He cannot possibly object the delivery of possession to be given by the developer to the plaintiffs as directed by the impugned Judgment and Decree. This dispute which is being raised by the appellant is dispute between the plaintiff and a third party to the agreement. In the agreement, he clearly admitted the title, interest of the plaintiff only and this agreement is of the year 2005. The developer filed the First Appeal and the interveners also filed First Appeal and in that case when stay application were rejected by this Court, this First Appeal have been filed by the present appellant at the instance of the builder. According to the learned counsel, the builder wants that the litigant should linger so that he will not deliver the possession to the plaintiffs and will earn from the built up shops and flats during the pendency of the First Appeal. Moreover, this is a suit for specific performance of contract and, therefore, the question whether the present appellant is entitled to share or not is a foreign question. The only question to be decided in the suit and the First Appeals arising out of the suit will be as to whether the agreement is enforceable or not against the developer. For deciding this question, the present appellant is not at all a necessary party or a proper party. At this stage, if it is held that this appeal is maintainable then a finding has to be recorded as to whether he has got right and interest over the suit property.
