Telangana High Court
Smt B.Ramadevi vs M/S Prime Properties And 3 Others on 5 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.954 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the aggrieved petitioner in I.A.No441 of 2018 in O.S.No.901 of 2001 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereunder her request for impleadement as defendant in the original suit through her petition under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. It appears from the impugned order, the petitioner wanted to implead herself as defendant No.3 in the above said suit and filed the above said interlocutory application along with her own affidavit, wherein she has claimed that the property shown in the plaint schedule was originally owned by one Nawab Hashim Ali Khan @ Hashim Ali. The said property was purchased by the grand-father 2 of the said Hashim Ali under a registered sale deed, bearing document No.707/1952 and there were no further alienations by Nawab Hashim Ali Khan under any registered document, but number of persons set up illegal claims in the property.
3. The petitioner while claiming that she has purchased an extent of Ac.6-00 in Sy.No.107 under an agreement of sale became the owner of the property, but the respondent/plaintiff and respondents/defendants without having any right over the suit schedule property created some litigation. Therefore, she wanted to be added as 3rd defendant for better adjudication of all the issues.
4. The said application was disputed by the respondent/plaintiff as well as the respondents/defendants. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner is claiming right through one Mir Hashim Ali Khan, but the said Hashim Ali Khan is an imposter and not a real Hashim Ali Khan. Therefore, the petitioner cannot acquire any right over the property. In support of his claim, the 1st 3 respondent/plaintiff has pleaded that the real Hasham Ali Khan was born in 1950, whereas as per the admitted records/documents i.e., driving licence, aadhaar card, LIC documents of said Hashim Ali Khan, the date of birth was 14.05.1952. Whereas the sale deed through which the grandfather of alleged Hashim Ali Khan purchased the property vide document No.707 of 1952 was executed on 30.04.1952. The then partners of 1st respondent filed a writ petition against the said imposter. Since the petitioner is claiming title through such an imposter, she cannot be made as party to the suit between respondent/plaintiff and respondents/defendants. Thereby, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The other defendants i.e., defendants in the original suit have also disputed the contention of the petitioner herein and prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. The trial Court having appreciated the contentions of both parties, and after perusing the entire 4 record, dismissed the application under the impugned order.
7. Heard both parties.
8. Now the following points arose for consideration in the present revision:
1. Whether the petitioner herein is proper and necessary party to the proceedings in O.S.No.901 of 2001?
2. Whether the petitioner is right in contending that without her presence the suit vide O.S.No.901 of 2001 cannot be effectively and completely adjudicated?
3. Whether the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to O.S.No.901 of 2001 and whether the trial Court was wrong in dismissing her petition?
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring the sale deed and other documents relied on by the respondent/plaintiff and respondents/defendants, has submitted that when once petitioner claimed that she purchased the suit schedule property from the original owner under a valid document, prima facie it is quite clear that the presence of the petitioner as party to the proceedings is quite essential. Otherwise, there could not be a final and proper adjudication of the entire litigation. It was also the case of petitioner that the respondent/plaintiff and respondents/defendants have no right over the 5 property, but created a false allegation to usurp her property. But, the Court below failed to consider her claim in a proper way.
10. Whereas, learned counsel for 1st respondent/plaintiff while referring the orders of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court in some other connected matters, submitted that when the litigation was commenced way back in 2001 and in view of multiple interlocutory applications filed by one party or other seeking their impleadement and in view of the other interlocutory applications by which the trial Court could not have been proceeded with the disposal, there was specific directions to the trial Court for expedite disposal of the suit. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. He has also submitted that the documents placed before the Court including the photocopy of the sale supposed to have been obtained in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, clearly shows that the document was executed much prior to the original date of birth of the said imposter. The documents 6 placed before the Court further indicates that details of the vendor of the petitioner clearly indicates that he is not real Hashim Ali, but he is an imposter. Therefore, on the guise of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by such an imposter, she cannot be added as party to the suit, more particularly when there is no claim by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner. He has also argued that the respondent/plaintiff being author of the suit cannot be compelled to add a particular party, against whom he was not asking any relief.
11. As could be seen from the entire martial placed before the Court the litigation was commenced about more than 20 years ago. There were multiple suits and other proceedings. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 wherein a portion of the orders of Hon'ble Apex Court and this High Court in other proceedings between various parties were extracted, it clearly indicates the trial Court was directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court for quick disposal of the suit. Though the extension of time was asked by the trial Court, the same was allowed with a 7 specific direction to the trial Court for quick disposal of the suit even without entertaining any interlocutory application for impleadement.
12. As could be seen from the material documents placed by the 1st respondent the date of birth of the vendor of petitioner herein is 14.05.1952 whereas the sale deed though which some property said to have been acquired in his name was obtain on 30.04.1952. Therefore, prima facie it shows that a fake document has been created in favour of one Hashim Ali. When the 1st respondent categorically claimed that the vendor of the petitioner is an imposter and produced material, the petitioner who is claiming title over the property through such a document, cannot be termed as proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings.
13. As rightly submitted by the respondent/plaintiff when he is not claiming any relief against the petitioner, there was no necessity for the petitioner to be added as party to the proceedings. If really, she has got some grievance, she can as well file/initiate necessary proceedings including suit for declaration of her title by 8 payment of required Court fee. But, she cannot add herself as a party to the proceedings for the sake of obtaining declaration in her favour.
14. Even if the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff is disposed without the presence of the petitioner, it may not have any impact on the contentions raised by the petitioner herein. The Judgment that may be passed in O.S.No.901 of 2001 between respondent No.1/plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendants will not bind the present petitioner and the trial Court cannot give any finding about the claim of present petitioner in the suit filed by responded/plaintiff Thereby, the trial Court rightly dismissed the interlocutory application and while exercising original jurisdiction, such order cannot be interfered with.
15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No. costs.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU Date: 05.07.2024 PSSK