The vs "The Relief Prayed For In The Said ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3753 AP

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1169 of 2020

ORDER:

The Petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit in

O.S.37/2008 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge,

Rayachoty.

2. The respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of

agreement of sale dated 18.02.2008. In the said suit, the

petitioner/plaintiff filed the present I.A.No.10/2019 with the following

prayers:

1. To add the defendant nos.3 to 5 as K.Jaya Kumari, K.Venu Gopal Babu and A.Chaya Anja in small cause title.

2. To add i) K.Jaya Kumari, W/o late K.Chandra Sekhar, aged about 51 years, Hindu, house wife, resident of D.No.4/66-1, Masapet, Kasba post, Rayachoty Mandal, Kadapa District, ii) K.Venu Gopal Babu, S/o K.Seetha Ramaiah, aged about 50 years, Hindu, business, resident of D.No.7/476-5, Bhagya Nagar colony, Kadapa city and District, and iii) A.Chaya Anja, w/o C.Anja, aged about 58 years, housewife, resident of D.no.1/1985, Krishnappa nagar, near Railway Station town and post, Kadapa city and District in full cause title.

3. On 25.9.2008, 03.9.2009 and 25.02.2014 when the defendant nos.3 to 5 created sham and nominal sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property (Add this matter at end of para no.6, page no.4 of plaint).

4. For purpose of to declare the sale deed dated 25.9.2008 gift deed dated 03.9.2009 and sale deed dated 25.02.2014 as null and void and not binding upon plaintiff a notional value is fixed at Rs.25,000/- and a court fee of Rs.1586/- is paid U/Sec.24(d) of APCF Act and for purpose of permanent injunction not to alienate suit schedule property till disposal of suit a notional value is fixed as Rs.25,000/- and a court of Rs.1586/- is paid U/Sec.26(c) of APCF Act. (Add this matter in page no.4, para no.8 after the sentence 39(a) of APCF Act).

5. To add the relief that "To declare the Regd. Sale deed dated 25.9.2008, executed by A.Saleem Khan (D2) in favour of Kadiri Jaya Kumari, the Regd. Gift deed dated 03.9.2009 executed by Kadiri Jaya Kumari in favour of Kotte Venu Gopal Babu and the Regd. Sale deed dated 25.02.2014 executed by Kotte Venu Gopal Babu in favour of Annayavari Chaya Anja in respect of suit schedule property as null and void and not binding upon Plaintiff" under Para No.9(a1) after para no.9(a) in Page No.4

6. To add the relief that "To grant permanent injunction against defendants from alienating the suit schedule property either by sale, gift or any other deeds in favour of third parties till disposal of the suit" under Para no.9(a2) after Para No.9(a1) in page no.4.

DR,J CRP.No.1169 of 2020

3. As per the contents of the I.A., during the pendency of the suit,

the 2nd respondent i.e. D2 has executed a sham and nominal sale

deed in favour of the proposed respondent no.3 who is sister of

defendant no.1 on 25.9.2008 and in turn she executed another sham

and nominal gift deed on 03.9.2009 infavour of her own brother Gopi

Babu i.e. proposed respondent no.4 and in turn he executed a sham

and nominal sale deed in favour of Smt. A.Chaya Anja/proposed

respondent no.5 on 25.02.2014 with a malafide intention to harass

him by creating multiplicity of litigations even after he gave evidence

before the Court. He further contended that recently, he came to

know that respondent no.5 is creating a sham and nominal sale deed

in favour of close associates of respondent no.1 (defendant no.1).

4. The respondents/defendants have filed their counter by denying

the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A and

inter alia contended that the plaintiff himself manipulated the suit

documents and to prove the same they have obtained stamp vendors

sale register under R.T.I Act and filed the same into this court by way

of a petition in I.A.No.799/2018 along with four other petitions. The

plaintiff came up with the present petition to implead respondent

nos.3 to 5 as defendant nos.3 to 5 in the main suit to counter blast

their contention and causing delay the suit proceedings and in fact the

petitioner/plaintiff filed suit in the year 2008 and the alleged sale

transactions as contended by the petitioner between him, 2nd

respondent and proposed 3rd respondent was taken place much prior

to filing of the main suit and as such, the suit itself is hit by limitation

and therefore, the suit is not binding upon 3rd respondent/3rd

defendant.

DR,J CRP.No.1169 of 2020

5. After considering the rival contentions, the Court below has

passed the following order.

"It seems that, on perusal of entire material on record, there are several transactions taken place between the parties. It is the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner has no right and title over the suit schedule property, as the property was not delivered to him, cannot be decided at this stage and so also, it is not in dispute that there are several transactions were taken place between the proposed parties with the 2nd respondent during the pendency of the suit and if that is being so, the proposed respondents 3 to 5 are necessary and proper parties since the transactions were taken place subsequent to filing of the suit and more so, respondents 4 and 5 claimed the suit schedule as of their property by virtue of the alleged gift deed and sale deed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties cannot be ruled out.

6. After notices served on the respondents, they have not chosen

to appear.

7. Aggrieved by the said orders, DW1 has filed the present

revision. Learned Counsel Sri S.Madhavarao appearing on behalf of

the petitioner has submitted that the I.A. itself is not maintainable.

The present I.A. filed by the petitioner for multiple prayers. Infact the

4th prayer sought in the said I.A to declare the sale deed dated

25.9.2008 gift deed dated 03.9.2009 and sale deed dated 25.02.2014

as null and void is beyond the scope of the plaint itself. Further, he

also requested for grant of permanent injunction against the

defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. Rule 55 of the

Civil Rules of Practice says that:

55. (New) Separate Application for each distinct prayer:-

There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. When several reliefs are combined in one application, the court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such reliefs unless the reliefs are consequential and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others.

8. To support his contentions, he relied on the decision of the High

Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in

DR,J CRP.No.1169 of 2020

between Supriya Cold Starage, Warangal vs. K.Sambasiva Rao

and others1 wherein it is recited that:

"The relief prayed for in the said I.A., filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 5 read with Order XVII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is as hereunder:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue summons to Manager ING Vysya Bank, Hanamkonda Branch directing him to produce vouchers under to which loan amount of the defendants vide loan A/c No.26/PC and another is repaid, by reopening the evidence of plaintiff".

It is needless to say that 3 reliefs had been prayed for in the said, same application. Rule 55 of the A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 dealing with Separate Application for each distinct prayer reads as hereunder:

"There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. When several reliefs are combined in one application, the Court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such reliefs unless the reliefs are consequential and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others."

In view of the above judgment, the Court has clearly held that

the when several reliefs are combined in one application, the Court

may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such

reliefs unless the reliefs are consequential and to file a separate

application in respect of each of the others.

9. Further learned Counsel contended that in a suit for specific

performance, there is no need or necessity to add the subsequent

purchasers as parties to the suit. To support the said submissions, he

relied on the citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vidur

Impex and traders private limited and others vs. Tosh

apartments private limited and others2 and also relied on the

citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sanjay Verma vs.

Manik Roy and others3 In both the cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court

held as per Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act being a principle

underlying S.52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking

(2006) 3 ALD 659

(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 384

(2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 608

DR,J CRP.No.1169 of 2020

notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. The

mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from

dealing with the property constituting the subject-matter of the suit.

The section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no

manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which

may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the

permission of the court.

10. A perusal of the record and after hearing the arguments of the

learned Counsel for the petitioner, no doubt that the I.A. is filed for

multiple prayers i.e. 6 prayers and each prayer is a distinct and

separate one.

11. As per the orders passed in Supriya Cold Starage, Warangal

vs. K.Sambasiva Rao and others referred to supra, no doubt that

the prayers in the present I.A. are distinct and separate reliefs and

the said filing of multiple prayers in one I.A. is contrary to Rule 55 of

Civil Rules of Practice. In view of the same, without going into the

other aspects, the order passed in I.A.No.10/2019 in O.S.No.37/2008

by the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty on 11.3.2020 is

set aside declaring that the I.A.No.10/2019 is filed by the respondents

with multiple prayers is contrary to Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in this Petition shall stand closed.

________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH

Date: 24.9.2021 RD

DR,J CRP.No.1169 of 2020

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1169 of 2020

Dated 24.9.2021

RD