Telangana High Court
Rayabandi Laxmi Bai vs Sri Vadla Alias Pagudoju Laxminarayana on 19 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Revision Petition No.3722 OF 2023
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.09.2023 in I.A.No.834 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2016 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District (hereinafter will be referred as 'trial Court'), the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned, wherein the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead the proposed respondents as defendants, was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before this Court are that petitioners/plaintiffs have filed petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead the proposed respondents as defendants and the brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the said petition are as under:
a) The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, which are their ancestral properties. The suit schedule property is land admeasuring Ac.6.03 guntas in Sy.No.1106 and land MGP,J 2 crp_3722_2023 admeasuring Ac.2.19 guntas in Sy.No.1064 of Ameenpur Villages. Along with the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs have also filed I.A.No.268 of 2016 seeking ad interim injunction and on 11.03.2016 the Court was pleased to grant statusquo with regard to the alienation of suit schedule property.
b) The land in Sy.No.1106 of Ameenpur Village is vacant but in spite of statusquo orders the respondent No.3 completed construction in the land admeasuring Ac.6.03 guntas in Sy.No.1106 by violating the orders of statusquo. Respondent No.9 and his brothers claiming ownership in respect of land in Sy.No.1106 have entered into development agreement with the respondent No.3 and in pursuance of the same, the respondent No.3 completed the construction in Sy.No.1106, as such there is no land lying vacant in Sy.No.1106. The land admeasuring Ac.2.19 guntas in Sy.No.1064 is abutting the land in Sy.No.1106 and taking advantage of the part of land lying vacant in Sy.No.1064, the proposed respondent No.9 without any right or title, showing vacant land inSy.No.1064 as land in Sy.No.1106 has created third party rights in favour of the proposed respondent Nos.10 to 13, who in turn have constructed houses.
MGP,J 3 crp_3722_2023
c) As the proposed respondents are claiming rights over part of the suit schedule properties and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present petition to implead the respondent Nos.9 to 13 as defendants for proper adjudication of the partition suit. If the proposed respondents are not impleaded as defendants, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs.
4. To the above said petition, the respondent Nos.9 to 11 and 13/proposed defendants have filed counter, the brief averments of which are as under:
a) The respondents have no idea as to who filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also not having any idea whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral or not. The respondents have no idea even about the statusquo order granted by the Court with regard to alienation of the suit schedule property.
b) The petitioners/plaintiffs have not filed any documentary evidence to show that development agreement was entered by these respondents with respondent No.3 and to say that constructed was completed. The respondents are no way connected to the said lands and filing of the impleading petition MGP,J 4 crp_3722_2023 is nothing but creating mental tension and agony and finally prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On hearing rival contentions, the trial Court dismissed the implead petition on the ground that as the respondents are not specifically claiming rights in Sy.No.1106, the presence of the proposed defendants is not required for adjudicating the issues involved in the suit.. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order, mainly on the following grounds:
i) The trial Court ought to have seen that the suit is for partition and any decree that may be passed in the absence of necessary parties would prolong the litigation.
ii) As the substantial rights of the petitioners are being determined in the suit, the respondent Nos.9 to 13, who are claiming right over the part of the suit schedule property, the respondents are proper and necessary parties.
iii) The trial Court erred in dismissing the implead application on the ground that the respondent Nos.9 to 13 have not specifically stated that they are also claiming rights in Sy.No.1106.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of revision.
MGP,J 5 crp_3722_2023
5. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs is that since the suit is filed for partition, the absence of respondent Nos.9 to 13, who are proper and necessary parties, would cause great prejudice to the petitioners/plaintiffs. There is no dispute that q q q the part of the suit schedule property is in Sy.No.1106. As per the contention of the respondents/proposed defendants, they are no way connected to the suit schedule property. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners/plaintiffs have not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate that the proposed defendants are claiming rights over the suit schedule property. To refute the said contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/petitioners/ plaintiffs placed reliance on copies of four registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.684 of 2021, dated 05.01.2021, 49415 of 2019, 49410 of 2019, 49412 of 2019 dated 21.11.2019. A perusal of copy of registered sale deed bearing registration No.684 of 2021, dated 05.01.2021 discloses that one Gurram Ramesh alienated 183.33 square yards in Sy.No.1106/AA of Ameenpur Municipality to Meka Lokesh, who is respondent No.13. A perusal of copies of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.49415 of 2019, 49410 of 2019, 49412 of 2019 dated MGP,J 6 crp_3722_2023 21.11.2019 discloses that Mahankali Anjaneyulu i.e., respondent No.9 alienated three plots admeasuring 183.33 square yards in sy.No.1106/AA of Ameenpur Village in favour of respondent No.12, 10 and 11 respectively. Thus, these documents disclose that the proposed defendants are having interest over the lands in Sy.No.1106. In A. Krishna Shenoy v. Ganga Devi and others 1 the Apex Court held as under:
"Admittedly, we are dealing with a suit for partition, in which every interested party is considered to be a plaintiff."
6. Merely because the proposed defendants have stated in their counter that they are no way connected to the suit schedule property, the trial Court has dismissed the implead application. It is settled law that plaintiff is the dominus litis. Without there being any dispute, the petitioners/plaintiffs have no business to involve the third parties in their case, more particularly, in a partition suit. In suits relating to property, in order that a third party may be impleaded, they should have a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation as distinguished from a mere commercial interest. The petitioners/plaintiffs have established that proposed defendants have interest in the subject matter of the litigation by filing relevant sale deeds. Moreover, in case, if at all the proposed 1 2023 Live Law (SC)778 MGP,J 7 crp_3722_2023 defendants are not impleaded in the suit and if the said suit is disposed of, the result of the suit would certainly affects the third parties legally.
7. In M/s. Trinity Infraventures Limited v. M. S. Murthy 2 the Apex Court observed as under:
"139. Therefore, in fine, we hold on Issue No. (i) that the judgment and preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963, though may not be vitiated by fraud, are certainly not binding upon third parties like the claim petitioners as well as the Government who have set up independent claims and that whatever was done in pursuance of the preliminary decree was an abuse of the process of law. We also hold on Issue No. (iv) that in an enquiry under Order XXI, Rules 97 to 101, CPC, the Executing Court cannot decide questions of title set up by third parties (not claiming through or under the parties to the suit or their family members), who assert independent title in themselves. All that can be done in such cases at the stage of execution, is to find out prima facie whether the obstructionists/claim petitioners have a bona fide claim to title, independent of the rights of the parties to the partition suit. If they are found to have an independent claim to title, then the holder of the decree for partition cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of third parties in these proceedings."
8. In Anita Soni v. Smt. Mina Devi and others 3 the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi expressed an opinion as under:
"8. It is true that application for joinder of a transferee pendente lite in a partition suit should ordinarily be allowed to enable the transferee pendente lite to protect his interest, however, in "Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr." reported in (2005) 11 SCC 403 it has been held that a transferee pendente lite cannot claim his addition in the pending suit as of right, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party; he can be added as a proper party only if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral [para-16].
9. In a partition suit, a purchaser pendente lite who has purchased undivided share of a co-sharer is normally impleaded as a party in order to work out equities in his favour in the final decree proceedings. His impleadment in the partition suit is only for the purpose of providing an opportunity to him to protect his rights 2 Civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.2373-2377 of disposed of on 15 June, 2023 3 W.P.(C) No.5237 of 2015 decided on 27.08.2018 MGP,J 8 crp_3722_2023 flowing from the sale-deed executed by a co-sharer to the extent of his vendor's share in the joint family property. His presence is not necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit and, in fact, only at the stage of Taktabandi when a final decree shall be prepared, a purchaser from a co- sharer can have a right to get the equities worked out in such a manner that he may get the land comprised under the sale-deed which has been transferred to him by one of the co-sharers."
9. Thus, in view of the principle laid down in the above said decisions and since the proposed defendants appeared to have purchased lands in suit survey number, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent Nos.9 to 13 are proper parties to be impleaded in the suit.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and accordingly the implead petition vide I.A.No.834 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2016 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 19.03.2024 AS