Pirati Sivaiah vs Late Somarouthu Nageswari
2023 Latest Caselaw 4010 AP

         THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI


              Civil Revision Petition No.1199 of 2022

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs under Article 227

of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 21.04.2022,

disposing of I.A.No.189 of 2021 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 on the file of

the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, filed under Section

151 CPC to club O.S.No.16 of 2020 with O.S.No.20 of 2019 on the

file of the same Court.

2. Heard Sri Paladugu Ganesh, learned counsel for the revision

petitioners/plaintiffs and M/s. Pilix Law Firm, learned counsel

appearing for respondent/defendant No.4.

3. O.S.No.16 of 2020 was initially filed as O.S.No.52 of 2019 on

the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, and later it was

transferred to the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, and

re-numbered as O.S.No.16 of 2020. This suit is filed by the legal

heirs of late Pirati Venkata Subbaiah, viz., Pirati Sivaiah, Pirati

Saraswathi, Nagam Balamma, Tummala Subba Rao, Tummala

Srinivasa Rao and Kuppala Nagarajakumari. The suit is filed for

specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale, dated

28.06.1979. As per the case of the plaintiffs therein, the suit

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1199 of 2022

schedule property is originally owned by Somarouthu

Ramachandraiah having purchased the same under a registered

sale deed, dated 01.02.1950, and later, he executed the said

agreement of sale in favour of late Pirati Venkata Subbaiah and put

the vendee in possession of the property by receiving the total sale

consideration. The plaintiffs further pleaded that a registered sale

deed, dated 06.07.1998, in favour of defendant No.4 is brought into

existence collusively and that the defendant No.4 is no other than

the son of the brother-in-law of Somarouthu Ramachandraiah and

thus, the sale deed is sham, collusive and nominal. Defendants 1 to

3 are the legal representatives of Somarouthu Ramachandraiah.

4. Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 filed suit in O.S.No.20

of 2019 against all the plaintiffs in O.S.No.16 of 2020 seeking

declaration that the registered relinquishment deed, dated

28.07.2008, executed by the 1st defendant and others in favour of

Tummala Naga Malleswari is null and void and not binding on the

plaintiffs by virtue of the registered sale deed, dated 06.07.1998,

executed by Somarouthu Ramachandraiah. The defendants 4 to 6

in O.S.No.20 of 2019 are the husband and children of Tummala

Naga Malleswari. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.16 of 2020 filed I.A.No.189 of 2021 praying to take common

evidence in O.S.No.16 of 2020 by clubbing the said suit with

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1199 of 2022

O.S.No.20 of 2019 to avoid conflicting judgments and for the

convenience of both the parties and to avoid delay. The petitioners

stated that O.S.No.16 of 2020 is a comprehensive suit.

5. The 1st respondent/1st defendant died. The respondents 2 &

3/defendants 2 & 3 remained ex parte in the suit and they did not

contest the petition. The respondent No.4/defendant No.4 (who is

the plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2019) reported no counter.

6. After hearing both parties and perusing the record, the trial

Court, though found that the subject matter and the property in

both the suits are one and the same, as the respondents 1 to 3 in

O.S.No.16 of 2020 are not the parties in O.S.No.20 of 2019,

declined to club the suits and directed simultaneous recording of the

evidence in both the suits.

7. Having been aggrieved by the order declining to grant the

relief, though the observations are to the effect that the subject

matter and the property in both the suits are one and the same,

this revision petition was filed.

8. It is obvious that the validity of the sale deed in favour of the

defendant No.4 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 is the subject matter in this

suit. In O.S.No.20 of 2019, the very same sale deed is the basis for

defendant No.4 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 who is the plaintiff in

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1199 of 2022

O.S.No.20 of 2019 to seek the relief of declaration that the

relinquishment deed executed by the 1st defendant and others as

null and void. It is not only the right of the 1st defendant and others

to execute the relinquishment deed which is to be considered, but

the validity of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of

2019 also falls for consideration in this suit. As such, the very same

question is involved in both the suits. Therefore, it is essential to

have a common trial in both the suits to avoid recording the same

evidence twice and conflicting decisions. As such, the trial Court

has erroneously observed that both the suits need to be tried by

recording evidence simultaneously just because the respondents 1

to 3 herein are not parties in O.S.No.20 of 2019. In fact, the

plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2019 has to join with the respondents 1 to

3 in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.16

of 2020, if the plaintiffs succeed in the suit. As such, the order

impugned in the revision needs to be interfered with.

9. On the previous occasion, it was represented that the revision

petition has become infructuous as the connected suit in O.S.No.20

of 2019 was dismissed for default. However, pending hearing of

this revision petition, since admittedly, it was restored to file, the

said obstacle was also removed. As such, it is a case fit to allow the

revision.

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1199 of 2022

10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the

order, dated 21.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Tenali, in I.A.No.189 of 2021 in O.S.No.16 of 2020.

Consequently, I.A.No.189 of 2021 is allowed, as prayed for.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 04-09-2023 RAR