Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
6/ vs At The Outset on 8 August, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
C.R.P.No.1143 of 2023
ORDER:
This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, is preferred against the order, dated 21.11.2019, in
I.A.No.727 of 2019 in O.S.No.103 of 2008 on the file of the Court
of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District filed
under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to direct the respondents 1 to
6/ plaintiffs to implead the petitioners/ third parties as the
defendants to the suit so as to permit them to defend their case.
2. The petitioners herein are the third parties to the suit.
The respondents 1 to 6 herein are the plaintiffs; respondents 7 to
22 herein are the defendants 1 to 16 in the suit.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2008
declaring the plaintiffs 2 to 4 title to the suit property and for
consequential relief directing all the defendants to deliver vacant
possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs 2 to 4
after removing the illegal thatched pendals in the plaint schedule
land and for mesne profits therein. In the said suit, the third
parties filed the application to implead them as the defendants to
the suit. The trial court dismissed the said application on the
ground that it is a cooked up story between the family members of
the 12th defendant and these petitioners. Assailing the same, the
present Revision came to be filed.
4. Heard Sri N. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the
petitioners/ third parties and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty,
learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.
5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that the trial court ought to have seen that whether there
is any interest in the suit property to the petitioners to see that to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Whereas the petitioners have
purchased an extent of Ac. 0.25 cents in Sy.No.146 of Alluru
Village, through Agreement of sale and there is Tobacco Barron
constructed by the father of the 3rd petitioner and the same was
sold by the petitioners to the 18th respondent. Mere selling of the
Tobacco Barron would not take away entire rights in the property
and the petitioners cannot be said that they are not necessary and
proper parties to the suit as the rights in Barron is different from
rights in the land. Therefore the present revision came to be filed.
6. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents would
contend that the 12th defendant in the suit, who is the contestant
is none other than the son-in-law of the 1st petitioner and husband
of the 2nd petitioner. They intentionally suppressed the
relationship of their family, with the consent of 12th defendant has
filed the application only to drag on the proceedings and in fact
they have no any interest over the suit schedule property and that
they are not liable to be impleaded in the suit proceedings.
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
respondents 2 to 4 placed reliance on the Judgment in
"Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo
and Others"1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"5....
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1, Rule 10
CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party
defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and
recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the
plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs
to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree
and/ or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC,
nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against
the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as
defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shal be at the risk
of the plaintiffs....."
8. So also relied on a case in "Suraj Lamp and Industries
Private Limited through Director Vs. State of Haryana and
Another"2 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"19. Any contract of sale (agreement of sell) which is not
a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of
the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not
confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable
property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A
of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale,
whether with possession or without possession, is not a
conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of
immovable property can be made only by a registered
AIR 2002 SC 4304
(2012) 1 SCC 656
instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any
interest of charge on its subject -matter".
9. Perused the record.
10. As could be seen from the impugned order of the trial
court that the application is filed as if their father D. Kotaiah
purchased an extent of Ac. 0.25 cents from Chalamaiah, Advocate,
who in turn purchased the said property from father of the 1st
defendant in the suit. It is further contended by the respondents
that whatever the document through which the implead
petitioners are relying is an agreement of sale, thereby they cannot
confer with absolute rights. The trial court upon perusal of the
documents of it is an agreement of sale executed by Lakshmi
Narayana on 11.01.1983 in favour of Chalamaiah, wherein it is
clear that he is ready to execute registered sale deed in favour of
Chalamaiah as and when it was demanded by him.
11. As could be seen from the application, whatever the
property purchased by father of the 3rd petitioner does not confer
any rights in view of the execution of agreement of sale by his
vendor in his favour, wherein he does not confer any absolute
rights. Further, his vendor himself is not having any right to
transfer the property to D.Kotaiah. Once the tabaco barren, which
is constructed in Ac. 0.25 cents was sold by the petitioners to 18th
respondent, then the question of keeping right over the said
property does not arise and that the trial court dismissed the
application.
12. In Sudhamayee Pattnaik's case cited supra, it is very
clear that not impleading any other person as defendants against
wish of the plaintiffs shall be at risk of plaintiffs. Thus subsequent
purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in
application submitted by the proposed third parties as against the
wish of the plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court opined that there is no
merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Hence, the trial court has given proper reasons by taking into
consideration of the facts on record properly. The court below has
dealt the issue in a right perspective and hence the order
impugned requires no interference of this Court.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the
submissions of both the counsel, the C.R.P is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall also stand closed.
___________________________
DR.K.MANMADHA RAO, J
Date: 08.08.2023.
KK
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
C.R.P.No.1143 of 2023
Date: 08.08.2023.
KK
