K Dalemma vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 7440 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No. W.P.No.2045 of 2019

                        PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl. DATE                     ORDER                                        OFFICE
No.                                                                        NOTE
29. 28.09.2022 MGR, J & TMR, J

                               I.A.No.1 OF 2021
                      The petitioner in the writ petition is
               the 4th Defendant in the suit O.S.No.11 of
               1976     before     the    Senior       Civil   Judge,
               Vizianagaram filed by the 4th respondent

herein for partition of suit scheduled property against Karanam Satyanarayana and Respondent No.3 Gowripalli Ramakrishna and Gowripalli Chinnamma. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat passed an Award on 15.9.2015 as per the terms and conditions entered between the 3rd and 4th respondents herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present W.P.No.2045 of 2019 alleging the award passed by the Lok Adalat is without notice to the petitioner even though she is a 4th Defendant in the suit and in the Award it is shown that she is dead and Lok Adalat passed an Award in terms of the compromise by its Award dated 15.9.2015 and the respondents obtained the said Award by playing fraud on the Lok Adalat.

The present Interlocutory Application 1 of 2021 is filed to bring the

implead petitioners 1 to 4 as proposed respondents 7 to 10 under Order 1 Rule 10 R/w Section 151 CPC and also Rule 16 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Writ Rules stating that they have purchased land to an extent of Ac.2.95 cents in Sy.No.97/2 and Ac.0.208 cents in Sy.No.114-I-D totalling Ac.3.23 cents in Thotapalem Village, Vizianagaram Bit-1, Vizanagaram Municipality through Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1662/2021 dated 12.3.2021 by paying a sale consideration of Rs.2,64,86,000/- from the writ petitioner Smt Karanam Dalemma, Smt Karanam Kalyani, W/o.

Damodara      Rao       (daughter-in-law       of
Karanam      Dalemma)       and      her     son
Karanaram     Satish     Babu,      S/o.     Late

Damodara Rao and her daughter Karanam Satyasri, being the legal heirs of late Sri Karanam Satyanarayana, 1st Defendant in O.S.No.11 of 1976. All the suits filed by Gowripalli Ramakrishna, adopted son of Gowripalli Venkataswami in O.P.No.19/1996 before Subordinate Judge Court, Vizianagaram, was renumbered as O.S.No.55/1966 claiming 2/3rd share in the suit scheduled property on the ground that he is the adopted son late Venkatta Swamay i.e., the husband of the 3rd Defendant Gowripalli Chinnamma in the suit and also sought for cancellation of

sale deeds and relinquishment deeds executed in favour of late Karanam Satyanarayana and prayed for division of the property into three equal shares and for allotment of one share in his favour i.e., 1/3rd of the suit schedule property. A preliminary decree for partition was passed allotting 1/3rd share in favour of Gowripalli Ramakrishna. The, the suit was decreed setting aside the sale deeds and relinquishment deeds executed by Gowripalli Chinnamma, 2nd Defendant in O.S.No.11/1976 and her minor daughter Gowripalil Rajaratnam, on the ground that Gowripalli Chinnamma W/o. late Gowripalli Venkataswamy had no absolute right in the property on her behalf and on her minor daughter Gowripalli Rajaratnam without obtaining permission as required under Section 8 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and insofar as the share of minor daughter Gowripalli Rajaratnam and adopted son Gowripalli Ramakrishna, against which Appeal No.133/1978 was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed on 2.6.1987. Thereafter in the same suit, the 3rd Defendant Gowripalli Ramakrishna filed I.A.No.540 /2007 in F.D.I.A.No.493/2000 in O.S.No.11/1976 before the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and pending these petitions, an Award is passed without notice to the

writ petitioner Karanam Dalemma.

Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao for Implead Respondents in I.A.No.1 of 2021 states that the implead petitioner/proposed respondents 7 to 8 being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration by way of registered sale deeds without knowledge of the Suit in O.S.No.11/1976 pending before the Subordinate Judge, Vizianagaram and pendency of W.P.No.2045 of 20219 before this Court, being pendentilite purchasers are having right to impelad in the present writ petition, in the event of writ petitioner being vendor of the petitioners/proposed respondents if she properly not contested the suit and writ petition, their rights in the suit scheduled property will be affected and thereby, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to them. The sale transaction is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioners are entitled to be impleaded as party respondents under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and relied on the decision of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Petakamsetty Ramasway Naidu and others Vs. Kandrupu Kondadu and others1, and

(2005) 3 ALD 853

taken this Court to Para-48, which reads thus:

"From the above, it is clear that when there is devolution of an interest on any person, such person may make an application to implead himself to protect his substantive interest, whether or not hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The basic principle is that any person, who wants to come on record in order to protect his interest, in normal course, should be permitted to do so by coming on record. Whether the transaction of such person and the creation or devolution of any interest by any party to the suit is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act or not, is altogether a different question and that question shall have to be decided by the Court after giving an opportunity of being heard to such of those parties who claim to have substantive interest. Merely on the ground, that too a prima facie ground, that the devolution of interest by way of any kind is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the same cannot be rejected at the threshold. Only upon giving an opportunity of being heard, such a

conclusion can be arrived at and that is possible only after permitting such persons to come on record, may be by way of making an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. or Order 22, Rule 10 C.P.C. Therefore, the essentiality is those persons first be permitted to be added as parties and then the question as to whether the genesis of right of such person is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act or not has to be decided.

He also placed reliance on the decision of in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others2, wherein in Para-

13 and 14, the Apex Court while dismissing the SLP filed against the High Court Judgement while referring to the provisions of the order 1 Rule 10 and Rule 10 of Order XXII of CPC and provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 held that the pendentilite purchasers from the Defendant Vendors are entitled to be impleaded as party respondents. To buttress his contention, he also placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and another3, and also in the case of Pruthvirajsih Nodhubha Rep. by LRs; Vs.

(1999) 2 SCC 877

2005 (4) ALD 98 (SC)

Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah and others4.

Sri O.Manohar Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, Advocate on Record states that the impelad petition is not maintainable as the petitioners in I.A/proposed respondents are aware of the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.11 of 1976 before the Subordinate Court, Vizianagaram and the present W.P.No.2045 of 2019 before this Court and purchased the property vide sale deed No.1662/2021 dated 12.03.2021 and the petitioner in the writ petition and her children are nothing to do with the subject property in the writ petition. The writ petitioner is claiming her right on the subject property even though her husband late Karanam Satyanarayana suffered decree and lost the case before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He has taken this Court to the provisions of Rule 10 of Order XXII of CPC and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He submits that the petitioners/proposed respondents being the pendentilite purchasers have no vested right to implead in the writ petition as party respondents. The petitioners being purchasers have to make proper enquiry before purchase of the subject property. The provisions of Section 52 of

(2019) 9 scc 533

the Transfer of Property Act clearly prohibit the transfer of property which is the subject matter of suit. The doctrine of lis pendens has been provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioners/proposed respondents have not explained what interest they have and what right they have in the subject property and what affected them. They are not having any vested right, much less, legal right to implead as proposed respondents in the writ petition. It is the discretion of the Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case to implead them. The writ petitioner and her children being the legal heirs of late Karanam Satyanarayana have no legal right to the subject property, in view of the judgment and decisions passed in O.S.No.11 of 1976 by the Subordinate Court, Vizianagaram declaring the sale deeds and the subsequent relinquishment deeds are null and void, no rights are accrued for the writ petitioner and her children to convey the subject property to vendees/the proposed respondents. However, the petitioner/vendor is contesting the matters. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to be impleaded as proposed respondents.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of

the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, we found that the writ petitioner being the 4th Defendant in the Suit in O.S.No.11/1976, having some semblance of right in respect of the subject property to sell away the same to the proposed respondents as her husband was a party to the earlier suit proceedings and the subject property devolved on her and her children, son and daughter being legal heirs of late karanam Satyanarayana and the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the subject property for valuable consideration through Registered Sale Deed No.1662/2021 dated 12.03.2021. Hence, in the interest of justice, we felt it appropriate, by exercising the discretion of the Court under Rule 10 of Order XXII of CPC and following the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above to implead the proposed respondents as Party Respondents in the writ petition. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

________ MGR, J

________ TMR, J

CSR