Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Golivi Ramanamma vs Erasmo Jack De on 19 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1336 of 2024
Between:
1. GOLIVI RAMANAMMA, W/O. MOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES AND CULTIVATION R/O. D.NO. 1-323,
REGULAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. CHALLA LAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUHOLD DUTIES, R/O. LINGALAPADU
VILLAGE, JALUMURU MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RANDI
RAJARAO, MUNSABUPETA VILLAGE BESIDE GAYATRI COLLEGE,
SRIKAKULAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT.
2. ALLU CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O. LINGALAVALASA VILLAGE, RANA
POST, JALUMURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. PANCHIREDDY SUHASINI, W/O. ALLU CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O. LINGALAVALASA VILLAGE,
RANA POST, JALUMURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S).
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 19.11.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Page 2 of 18
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1336 of 2024
% 19.11.2024
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1336 of 2024:
Between:
1. GOLIVI RAMANAMMA, W/O. MOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES AND CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO.1-323,
REGULAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. CHALLA LAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUHOLD DUTIES, R/O. LINGALAPADU
VILLAGE, JALUMURU MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RANDI
RAJARAO, MUNSABUPETA VILLAGE, BESIDE GAYATRI COLLEGE,
SRIKAKULAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT.
2. ALLU CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O. LINGALAVALASA VILLAGE, RANA
POST, JALUMURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. PANCHIREDDY SUHASINI, W/O. ALLU CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O. LINGALAVALASA VILLAGE,
RANA POST, JALUMURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S).
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Aravala Rama Rao
^ Counsel for Respondents :
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (2012) 5 SCC 370
2) (2021) 6 SCC 418
3) AIR 1954 SC 75
4) AIR 2022 SC 1973
5) (2024) 8 (SCC) 83
6) (2015) 5 SCC 223
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 18
APHC010273642024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1336/2024
Between:
1. GOLIVI RAMANAMMA, W/O. MOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES AND CULTIVATION R/O. D.NO.
1-323, REGULAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, KOTABOMMALI
MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. CHALLA LAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUHOLD DUTIES, R/O. LINGALAPADU
VILLAGE, JALUMURU MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
RANDI RAJARAO, MUNSABUPETA VILLAGE BESIDE GAYATRI
COLLEGE, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT.
2. ALLU CHANDRA SEKHAR, , S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O. LINGALAVALASA
VILLAGE, RANA POST, JALUMURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT.
3. PANCHIREDDY SUHASINI, W/O. ALLU CHANDRASEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O. LINGALAVALASA
VILLAGE, RANA POST, JALUMURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Page 4 of 18
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in
the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may
be pleased to Petitioner present this Memorandum of Civil Revision
Petition against the order dated 14.03.2024 in lA.No.628/2023 in
O.S.No.60/2016 on the file the Court of Judge Family Court cum III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam
IA NO:1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in
O.S. No. 60 of 2016 in the court of the Judge, Family Court cum III
Additional District & Sessions Court, Srikakulam pending Civil Revision
Petition and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order
dated 14.03.2024 in I.A.No.628 of 2023 in O.S.No.60 of 2016 on the file
of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.
2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.60of 2016 seeking specific
performance of agreement of sale dated 12.08.2015, against the sole
defendant.
3. Facts, in the plaint, in brief, are that an agreement of sale was
entered into on 12.08.2015 between the plaintiff and defendant for a sale
consideration of Rs.19,30,000/-. At the time of the agreement of sale, the
plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and the balance
sale consideration has to be paid on or before December 2015. The
defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to arrange some sale
consideration amount and the plaintiff paid Rs.2,50,000/- through her
husband on 25.09.2015 and the defendant passed on a receipt, which
was scribed by her husband. On 23.01.2016, the defendant received an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff's husband and passed a
receipt in the presence of witnesses. The said receipt was scribed by the
defendant's husband. Thus, the defendant received a total amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant failed to perform her part
of the contract and hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated
04.03.2016, for which the defendant issued a reply notice on 26.03.2016.
Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed a written statement and did not deny the
execution of the agreement of sale. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had
not come to the Court with clean hands. Despite requests made by the
defendant, the plaintiff failed to perform her part of the contract. The
defendant approached the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract
before December 2015, however, the plaintiff failed to perform the same.
The defendant denied the receipts said to have been issued by her
husband. The defendant to meet expenses, sold away the plaint
schedule property to third parties and the said fact is known to the
plaintiff and eventually, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The trial in the suit was commenced. When the suit was coming up
for arguments, the plaintiff filed three interlocutory applications i.e. to
implead the subsequent purchasers; one application under Section 45 of
the Indian Evidence Act and the other application is filed under Order
XVIII Rule 17 of CPC.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.628 of 2023,
to implead the subsequent purchasers, it was pleaded that after issuance
of legal notice, the defendant sold the property to one Allu Chandra
Sekhar and his wife Suhasini under a registered sale deed dated
27.04.2016 vide document No.2627 of 2016. Hence, they are necessary
parties.
7. A counter was filed on behalf of the defendant as well as proposed
parties opposing the application. It was contended that the plaintiff was
aware of the sale and filed the petition only to procrastinate the
proceedings.
8. By order dated 14.03.2024, the application was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.
9. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to
3.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proposed
parties are necessary parties to the suit. After the issuance of legal
notice, the sole defendant alienated the property in favour of the
proposed parties, and the fact was unknown to the petitioner. He would
also submit that the document dated 27.04.2016 is nominal, and that the
trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly.
11. Now, the point for consideration is:
Does the order dated 14.03.2024 in I.A.No.628 of 2023 in
O.S.No.60 of 2016 suffer from illegality or perversity
warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India?
12. The suit was filed in July 2016. The written statement was filed,
immediately, and it was contended that since the plaintiff failed to come
forward to perform her part of the contract, the defendant faced many
problems and hence, sold away the plaint schedule property to third
parties and the said fact is also known to the plaintiff.
13. Thus, by filing a written statement the defendant
indicated/informed alienation of property. The plaintiff examined herself
as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 4. The defendant's husband was
examined as D.W.1 and the scribe of Ex.A1 was examined as D.W.2.
When the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff filed the above
application along with two other applications. The defendant admittedly
sold the property to the proposed parties vide document No.2627 of
2016. The plaint schedule property is a vacant site in an approved
layout.
14. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to extract Order I Rule
10(2), which reads thus:
10. Suit in the name of the wrong plaintiff.--
(1) ...
(2) Court may strike out or add parties.--The Court may at any
stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of
either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be
just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any
person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary
in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
15. The object of sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order I, is to bring before the
Court all persons, who are parties to dispute relating to the subject matter
so that the dispute may be determined without delay, inconvenience and
expenses of separate occasions. It is a settled principle of law that the
rights of a subsequent purchaser of the property, pending suit, are
subservient to the rights of parties under the decree, which may be made
in the suit. At the same time, one should not be oblivious that the
subsequent purchasers claiming through the same vendor and the same
property can be added as parties to the suit to avoid the multiplicity of
proceedings.
16. A necessary party ought to be joined as a party to the suit, and in
whose absence, an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. A
proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to
completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and
issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a
decree is to be made.
17. Of course, in the case at hand, the suit is one filed for specific
performance of the agreement of sale, dated 12.08.2015. A legal notice
was issued by the plaintiff, before instituting the suit on 04.03.2016.
Reply notice, dated 26.03.2016 was issued by the defendant through
Advocate. The suit was filed, as seen from the copy of the plaint, in June
2016. After issuance of the legal notice, before the institution of the suit,
the defendant alienated the property to the proposed parties by
registered document No.2627 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016. It is also an
undisputed fact that, in the written statement filed by the defendant, it
was pleaded that the defendant, sold away the property to the third
parties and the said fact is known to the plaintiff.
18. The plaintiff, before filing the suit ought to have verified the
encumbrances over the property. Had the plaintiff verified the
encumbrance certificate, he would have impleaded, the subsequent
purchaser of the property, after the agreement to sell before filing the
suit, as a party defendant. Normally, the Trial Courts do not insist on filing
an Encumbrance Certificate at the stage of numbering the suit. However,
in cases of this nature, by insisting upon the filing of an encumbrance
certificate, the dispute can be adjudicated efficiently. The Advocate
should have advised the plaintiff to get the encumbrance certificate so
that the present situation could have been avoided.
Importance and uses of Encumbrance Certificates in judicial
proceedings:
19. Indian society, at large, including the international community
constantly evaluates every institution particularly the institutions like the
Justice Delivery System. The journey of civil litigation and working of the
Code of Civil Procedure for the past one and half century has faced
many challenges. With the lessons from experience, substantial changes
are brought in during 1908, 1976 and 2002. Yet, the delays remain static.
20. Encumbrance Certificate sometimes plays a vital role and it
indicates the bona fides of the parties qua the efforts put in by them
regarding verifying the information, particularly in the context of Section 3
of The Transfer of Property Act, which deals with constructive notice of
certain things as to registered transactions. Of course, the Courts,
normally at the numbering stage may not insist on filing of encumbrance
certificate. The duty is not confined to the Court. Every stakeholder must
be fair and dutiful towards the judicial institution. When a litigant is
expecting relief from the judicial system, he/she/it is supposed to be
diligent. One who is not diligent cannot claim that he is bona fide. A
person, before, initiating litigation does not care to verify antecedents of
the property viz., the subject matter of the litigation, by making
reasonable and possible enquiries which one could easily make, he/she
cannot subsequently blame anybody. The principles of fairness, good
conscience, and equity, demand that one must be fair to the Court.
21. A party filing a suit for specific performance, if verified by obtaining
an Encumbrance Certificate as to right being intact with his vendor, can
easily know if any other person is having interest and if such interest is
after the interest of the plaintiff (the person initiating litigation). In such a
case, even the subsequent purchaser as well can be added and the
subsequent purchaser becomes not merely proper but a necessary party
to the litigation. The rights and remedies of such subsequent purchaser
against the common vendor can also be considered and there will be
wider scope for considering the bona fides of all ends if such a party is
made.
22. The Encumbrance Certificate may not disclose everything, may not
be totally reliable, and may have its defects. However, the Encumbrance
Certificate would indicate at least fairness and bona fides on the part of
the stakeholders concerned if obtained, verified and enclosed with his
plaint. Such exercise is advisable with the changing trends in civil
litigation and the same will avoid delays.
23. By filing the encumbrance certificate at the first instance, i.e. at the
time of numbering the suit, the plaintiff will always be in an advantageous
situation. The some of observations in Maria Margarida and Rahul
S.Shah cases are extracted here with.
24. In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de
Sequeira1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
Truth as guiding star in the judicial process
32. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be
to find out where in fact the truth lies.
33. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process.
Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system
has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all
levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering
the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice
system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that
justice is based on the foundation of the truth.
40. World over, modern procedural codes are increasingly relying on full
disclosure by the parties. Managerial powers of the Judge are being
deployed to ensure that the scope of the factual controversy is minimised.
52. Truth is the foundation of justice. It must be the endeavour of all the
judicial officers and Judges to ascertain truth in every matter and no stone
should be left unturned in achieving this object. Courts must give greater
emphasis on the veracity of pleadings and documents in order to
ascertain the truth.
69. The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as
possible, give a detailed particularised specific pleading along with
(2012) 5 SCC 370
documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which
establish his possession.
71. Apart from these pleadings, the court must insist on documentary
proof in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be
relevant which come into existence after the transfer of title or
possession or the encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with
the civil suits, at the threshold, the court must carefully and critically
examine the pleadings and documents. (emphasis is mine)
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul S.Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar
Gandhi2, in connection with protracted execution proceedings observed
as follows:
1. ... The course of litigation highlights the malaise of constant abuse
of procedural provisions which defeat justice, i.e. frivolous attempts by
unsuccessful litigants to putting up spurious objections and setting up
third parties, to object, delay and obstruct the execution of a decree.
23. This court has repeatedly observed that remedies provided for
preventing injustice are actually being misused to cause injustice, by
preventing a timely implementation of orders and execution of decrees.
This was discussed even in the year 1872 by the Privy Counsel in The
General Manager of the Raja Durbhunga vs. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput
Sing, (1871-72) 14 Moore's I.A. 605, which observed that the actual
difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. This
Court made a similar observation in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan
Prasad Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna, (2009) 9 SCC 689, wherein it
recommended that the Law Commission and the Parliament should
bestow their attention to provisions that enable frustrating successful
execution. The Court opined that the Law Commission or the Parliament
must give effect to appropriate recommendations to ensure such
amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the
2021 (6) SCC 418
adjudication of a suit, so as to ensure that the process of adjudication of a
suit be continuous from the stage of initiation to the stage of securing
relief after execution proceedings. The execution proceedings which are
supposed to be handmaid of justice and sub serve the cause of justice
are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct
justice.
27. This is anti-thesis to the scheme of Civil Procedure Code, which
stipulates that in civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise, must
be decided in one and the same trial. Order I and Order II which relate to
Parties to Suits and Frame of Suits with the object of avoiding multiplicity
of proceedings, provides for joinder of parties and joinder of cause of
action so that common questions of law and facts could be decided at
one go.
31. As the trial continues between specific parties before the Courts and
is based on available pleadings, sometimes vague description of
properties raises genuine or frivolous third-party issues before delivery of
possession during the execution. A person who is not party to the suit, at
times claims separate rights or interests giving rise to the requirement of
determination of new issues.
36. Some of the measures in that regard would include that before
settlement of issues, the Court must, in cases, involving delivery of
or any rights relating to the property, exercise power under Order XI
Rule 14 by ordering production of documents upon oath, relating to
declaration regarding existence of rights of any third party, interest
in the suit property either created by them or in their knowledge. It
will assist the court in deciding impleadment of third parties at an
early stage of the suit so that any future controversy regarding non-
joinder of necessary party may be avoided. It shall ultimately
facilitate an early disposal of a suit involving any immovable
property. (emphasis is mine)
26. In the context of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rahul's case (supra-1) especially in Para-36 and the observations in
Maria's case (supra-2), this court is of the considered opinion that
insisting on the filing of an encumbrance certificate at the stage of the
numbering of the suit may arrest further delays and speed up the trial of
the suit at various stages including granting of ad-interim injunction
orders. In some cases, the parties to the litigation are creating third-party
interest pending the suit and the same can be avoided if an injunction is
granted based on the facts of the case and material. An Encumbrance
Certificate will help the plaintiff in such circumstances. So that third-party
innocent purchasers will not be victims in the hands of unscrupulous
litigants. Getting an Encumbrance certificate in the present day
circumstances is not a herculean task. Had the Court insisted on the
filing of E.C. at the time of numbering the suit, at the fag end of the suit
there is no need for the filing of I.A. like in this suit, seeking to implead
third-party purchasers as party-defendants. If this course is adopted,
even the suits can be disposed of as early as possible without delay,
including, the time spent in I.As.
27. After the judgment and decree, in case the suit is decreed, the
third-party purchaser, cannot complain his/her absence and collusion
between the parties to the suit. When it comes to the execution of a
decree for a specific performance, the age-old adage that the troubles of
the decree-holder commence from the decree can be avoided. If the
subsequent purchaser claims through the same vendor, arrayed as a
party defendant, he/she will contest the suit and the judgment
pronounced binds everyone to the suit. In that way not only precious time
will be saved but also disputes will be dealt with judiciously and
efficiently.
28. Normally in a suit for the specific performance of a contract, the
contracting parties alone are proper and necessary. The Court will not
adjudicate third-party rights. However, in cases of the one on hand, even
the purchaser of the property from the same vendor is a necessary party.
By arranging the purchaser, after the agreement of sale, valuable judicial
time can be saved. In fact, such a step is not difficult if one verifies the
encumbrance certificate, which will reflect all the registered transactions.
The importance of arranging the subsequent purchaser as a party
defendant is discussed infra. If proper parties are shown, looking at the
encumbrance certificate, the time spent in interlocutory applications can
be avoided be it pending the suit or after the decree. This procedure may
also inspire confidence in the general public. 'Let the litigant not miss
faith in the system'.
29. The litigants and advocates should not forget that in the
administration of justice, Judges and lawyers play equal roles. Like
Judges, lawyers also must ensure that truth triumphs in the
administration of justice.
30. The decided cases show that in a suit for partition even at the
stage of the final decree, innocent purchasers, after coming to know
about the preliminary decree, are filing petitions seeking impleadment.
The same is the situation even in suits for declaration and perpetual
injunctions. To avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, the parties
should file the encumbrance certificate along with the plaint, which will
ease future litigation. Even the Courts at the numbering stage, in a given
case, direct the parties to file encumbrance certificates, of course, it is
always in the interest of parties as discussed supra.
31. The case at hand is a classic example. As discussed supra,
despite the specific averment in the written statement, I.A. was filed at
the fag end of the suit. Of course, as discussed supra, there are laches
on the part of the plaintiff. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with
the necessity of arranging the subsequent purchaser from the same
vendor in a suit for specific performance about six decades back.
32. In Lala Durga Prasad and another Vs. Lala Deep Chand and
Others3, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
42. In our opinion, the proper form of decree is to direct specific
performance of the contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and direct
the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on
the title which resides in him to the plaintiff. He does not join in any special
covenants made between the plaintiff and his vendor; all he does is to pass
on his title to the plaintiff. This was the course followed by the Calcutta High
Court in Kafiladdin v. Samiraddin (I), and appears to be the English
practice. See Fry on Specific Performance, 6th edition, page 90, Paragraph
207 ; also Potter v. Sanders( 2 ). We direct accordingly ..." (emphasis is
mine)
33. In P. Ramasubbamma Vss. V. Vijayalakshmi4, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that in a suit for specific performance, the agreement holder
doesn't need to seek cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of
a subsequent purchaser. It is sufficient to implead subsequent purchaser
in the suit and seek relief of specific performance against the original
owner and also a direction to the subsequent purchaser to join in the
execution of the sale deed to completely convey title to the agreement
holder.
AIR 1954 SC 75
AIR 2022 SC 1973
34. In Maharaj Singh Vs. Karan Singh 5 , the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed as under
24. In view of clause (b) of Section 19, the defendants who are claiming
under the sale deeds executed after the execution of the suit agreement
can be subjected to a decree of specific performance as the suit
agreement can be enforced specifically against such defendants unless
they are bona fide purchasers without the notice of the original contract.
When, in a given case, the defendants, who are subsequent purchasers,
fail to prove that they entered into the sale deed in good faith and without
notice of the suit agreement, in view of Section 19(b), a decree for
specific performance can be passed against such defendants. Therefore,
in such a case where Section 19(b) is applicable, under the decree of
specific performance, the subsequent purchasers can be directed to
execute the sale deed along with the original vendor. There is no
necessity to pray for the cancellation of the subsequent sale deeds."
Also see Rathnavathi & Anr Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas6.
35. In the case at hand, as discussed supra despite the written
statement filed by the defendant, the plaintiff waited till the suit was
coming up for arguments and filed the application, which shows that the
plaintiff is not diligent. However, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings
coupled with the ratio in Lala Durga Prasad's case, this Court deems it
appropriate that the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule
property, before filing the suit are also necessary parties for proper
adjudication of the suit. Since the plaintiff procrastinated filing of
application, this Court deems it appropriate to impose costs in the
interests of justice and equity.
(2024) 8 SCC 83
2015 (5) SCC 223
36. The trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it and
hence the order under revision is liable to be set aside.
37. Given the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed
on payment of costs Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only),
payable by the plaintiff to the District Legal Services Authority,
Srikakulam, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. If the plaintiff fails to pay the amount within the stipulated time, the
order passed by this Court stands rescinded without reference to any
further order.
The Plaintiff shall file a neat copy of the plaint. Learned Trial Court
shall issue notice to the proposed parties. Since the suit is of the year,
2018, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as
possible.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Note: LR Copy to be marked.
B/O
PVD/IKN
