Telangana High Court
M.Sakku Bai vs K.Srinivas And 6 Others on 22 March, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2823 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy in I.A.No.778 of 2021 in O.S.No.47 of 2014.
2. The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead the respondent Nos.5 to 7 as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit and for consequential amendments wherever necessary. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the said application with costs.
3. Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7. Perused the entire material available on record.
4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court having allowed the implead petition with regard to the first transferee i.e., defendant No.4, grossly erred in not allowing the application filed seeking to implead the subsequent transferees i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 7 on record. He further contended that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are trying to encroach 2 LNA, J CRP.No.2823 of 2022 the suit schedule property. Hence, he prayed to allow this Revision Petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 contended that the petitioner is claiming property in Sy.No.950, whereas the property claimed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 forms part of Sy.No.949 and the trial court having observed the said fact, rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, which warrants no interference by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 placed reliance on the judgment of the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh in Brig. Chatrapati Singh Dev Vs. Amulya Kumar Padhi and others 1 and the judgment of the combined High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Sogra Begum Vs. Ghousia Begum and others 2
7. In Brig. Chatrapati Singh Dev's case (1st cited supra), the High Court held as under:-
"The learned Junior Civil Judge was in error in holding that a petition to impleadment of a party cannot contain the consequential relief of the amendments to be made and that such prayer amounts to claiming two reliefs in 1 (2005) 5 ALD 315 2 2017(5) ALD 122 3 LNA, J CRP.No.2823 of 2022 one petition. In view of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, which lays down that all petitions filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 22 CPC shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments, and that a petition without such relief should be rejected."
8. Having held so, the High Court found fault with the order of the trial Court in dismissing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
9. In fact, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is in favour of the revision petitioner and squarely applies to the facts of present case.
10. In Sogra Begum Vs. Ghousia Begum's (2nd cited supra), it is a case where Order I Rule 10(2) and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC petitions were allowed without seeking consequential amendment to plaint as required under Rule 28 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, an application was filed seeking leave of court to amend plaint filed after completion of entire trial and the suit is posted for arguments and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court.
4
LNA, J CRP.No.2823 of 2022
11. In the case on hand, the petitioner filed the application seeking to implead the proposed respondent Nos.5 to 7 as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit and for making consequential amendments wherever necessary. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.
12. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties.
13. The material available on record discloses that the suit is filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which is located in Sy.No.950. During the pendency of the suit, when the suit schedule property was alienated by defendant No.1 in favour of one Nandyala Srinivas Reddy, the said person was impleaded as defendant No.4 in the suit.
14. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present application seeking to implead the respondent Nos.5 to 7 as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit on the ground that defendant No.4 appointed respondent No.5 as General Power of Attorney, who in turn executed registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 by wrongly describing the property as Plot No.54, forming part of 5 LNA, J CRP.No.2823 of 2022 Sy.Nos.948, 949, 950 to 954. Thereafter, respondent No.7- company has taken assignment deeds for the said land and as such, it is also involved in the sale transactions.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court a copy of order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.501 of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2014. The said application was filed by plaintiff seeking permission to amend the plaint and the said application was allowed. In the said order, the trial Court observed as under:-
"As from the record it is clear that the petitioner is claiming her land in Sy.No.950, the respondents set up a different story and contended that their land is different from the land of petitioner and they claimed land in view of Judgments in O.S.No.219 of 1982 and 388 of 2001. According to them, their land is situated in Sy.No.949 but not in Sy.No.950. More-over, the Sy.No.949 is not subject matter of present suit. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any relief in respect of Sy.No.949.
Whether the land is situated in Sy.No.949 or 950 is a crucial point, to be decided after full trial. At this stage by looking into the documents this court cannot say the land is situated in Sy.No.949 or 950. It is to be decided after trial that whether the petitioner and respondent No.1 and 4 are claiming same land or not. The burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove of it."6
LNA, J CRP.No.2823 of 2022
16. Therefore, it is manifest from the said order that there is dispute with regard to the Survey Number. That apart, in the present application, the petitioner averred that the property covered under the sale deeds executed by the defendants is forming part of the suit schedule property. In such an event, the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the property purchased by the proposed respondent No.6 is in Sy.No.950 and the property claimed by the petitioner is in Sy.No.949.
17. It is also apposite to note when respondent No.4 who is the subsequent purchaser from respondent No.1 was impleaded as defendant No.4 in the suit, the trial Court grossly erred in not impleading the respondent Nos.5 to 7 as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit, who are said to be the subsequent purchasers from defendant No.4. The result of the lis in the present suit will affect the rights of the said parties and further, leads to unnecessary and multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are proper and necessary parties to the suit.
7
LNA, J CRP.No.2823 of 2022
18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
19. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy in I.A.No.778 of 2021 in O.S.No.47 of 2014, is set aside. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are impleaded as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the subject suit. Interim order granted by this Court on 09.12.2022 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:22.03.2024 dr