Thota Rambabu S vs 1.Mohammed Shaheda Begun
2021 Latest Caselaw 5474 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

      CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.1165 & 1166 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:-

       The petitioner filed O.S.No.68 of 2021 on the file of

Principal     Junior   Civil   Judge,    Ponnur   against    the   4th

respondent herein on the ground that the 4th respondent is

interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over

the suit schedule property, and sought a permanent

injunction restraining the 4th respondent, from interfering with

the suit schedule property. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.133

of 2021, for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.

At that stage, the respondents 1 to 3 filed I.A.No.165 of 2021

to implead them as defendants in the suit and I.A.No.170 of

2021 to implead them as respondents in I.A.No.133 of 2021.

The case of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the suit schedule

property is the subject matter of a suit of partition in

O.S.No.376 of 2018 before the III Additional District Judge,

Guntur. The said suit had been filed by the father of the

respondents 1 to 3 against his mother and other members of

the family in which the petitioner herein also had been

impleaded as a defendant.

2. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that this

property had been sold to the petitioner herein by one of the

parties to O.S.No.376 of 2018 and that the petitioner had

purchased this property being fully aware of the pendency of

the suit. The respondents 1 to 3 also took the stand that the

suit schedule property is in the possession of the 4th

respondent herein is their tenant.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 contended that they are

just and necessary parties as any compromise between the 4th

respondent and the petitioner under which the 4th respondent

hands over possession of the suit schedule property would

result in grave and irreparable loss and damage to the

interests of the respondents 1 to 3. They also contended that

in view of the pendency of the suit for partition, they are just

and necessary parties in this suit also.

4. The petitioner herein opposed the said application

on the ground that the respondents 1 to 3 are not just and

necessary parties whose presence is necessary for a complete

adjudication of the issues raised in the suit.

5. The trial Court after considering the contentions of

both sides, allowed both the applications by the orders dated

01.10.2021. Aggrieved by the said orders of this Court, the

petitioner has filed these two civil revision petitions which are

being disposed of by this common order.

6. Heard Sri A.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel for

the respondents 1 to 3 respectively.

7. The trial Court took the view that since the

respondents 1 to 3 are claiming ownership of the property and

since the petitioner herein is also claiming ownership of the

property, the absence of the respondents 1 to 3 in the present

suit could result in their rights being affected and that a

proper adjudication of the suit can be done only by adding the

respondents 1 to 3.

8. Sri A.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the trial Court ignored the fact that the

suit was filed by the petitioner and as dominus litus, it is the

prerogative of the petitioner to choose the defendants and

scope of the suit. He further contends that the respondents 1

to 3 are not just and necessary parties under Order I Rule 10

of C.P.C. which requires impleading of a party only where

such a person is necessary for a proper and complete

adjudication of the issues raised in the suit. He contends that

there is no such situation in the present case and as such, the

respondents 1 to 3 are neither necessary nor just and

necessary for a disposal of the suit.

9. Sri A.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner would also contend that the respondents, who are

aware of the sale deed giving title to the petitioner, have not

chosen to challenge the said sale deed and as such, cannot

claim any ownership or title in the property.

10. Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel for the

respondents 1 to 3 submits that in view of the dispute over the

title and in view of the fact that the petitioner is already a

party in O.S.No.376 of 2018, the possibility of conflicting

judgments cannot be ruled out and could result in multiplicity

of proceedings. He further submits that the issue of whether

the 4th respondent is in possession of the property or not has a

bearing on the suit and the said issue would require the

presence of the respondents 1 to 3 in the suit.

11. A perusal of the pleadings and the submissions

made by the learned counsel clearly shows that the suit

schedule property is the subject matter of dispute in

O.S.No.376 of 2018 as well as the present suit. The claim of

the respondents 1 to 3 in both the suits is that they have a

right and share in the suit schedule property on account of

being members of the family of the vendor of the petitioner

herein. The further dispute in the present suit is on the

question of whether the 4th respondent is in possession of the

property as claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 or whether the

property is in the possession of the petitioner as claimed by

him. This issue would certainly require the presence of the

respondents 1 to 3 and as such, it cannot be said that a

comprehensive resolution of this dispute can be arrived at by

the trial Court in the absence of the respondents 1 to 3.

12. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the

order of the trial Court does not require any interference by

this Court.

13. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are

dismissed. It shall be open to the trial Court to take up

I.A.No.133 of 2021 and dispose of the same at the earliest and

preferably within one month from the date of receipt of this

order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil

Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 24-12-2021 RJS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

`

CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.1165 & 1166 of 2021

Date : 24-12-2021

RJS