Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anumula Gopala Rao vs Eemani Koti Reddy on 6 November, 2024
1
APHC010106592023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 748/2023
Between:
Anumula Gopala Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
Eemani Koti Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. MOHANNAIR RAJEEV
KUMAR
The Court made the following:
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.748 of 2023
ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order
dated 23.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.690 of 2021 in O.S.No.331 of 2012 by
the VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner herein is the
plaintiff.
2. The Suit in O.S.No.331 of 2012 was originally filed by the petitioner
herein, to declare the Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1958 Registered as
Doc.No.1982 of 1958 in SRO Gannavaram is valid and binding on both the
plaintiff and the Defendant No.1, by virtue of which, the plaintiff claims to
be absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e. in an extent of
Ac.7.50cents out of Ac.9-50 cents in D.No.138 of Pathapadu village,
Vijayawada Rural Mandal.
3. During the pendency of the Suit, third parties, who have purchased
the house plots in the Suit Schedule property, came on record, pursuant to
the orders passed in various I.As, as mentioned in the amended cause title
of the plaint. The third parties were added as Defendants 6 to 76 pursuant
to the 13 interlocutory orders.
4. The Respondent No.1 and 2 herein also filed application in
I.A.No.690 of 2021, to come on record and they claims to have purchased
an extent of Ac.0.60cents i.e., 2904 Square Yards under Registered Sale
Deed bearing Doc.No.2410/2015 dated 31.08.2015, which is forming part
of Suit Schedule property. The Trial Court, on contest, allowed the said
application. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is filed.
5. Heard Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Mohannair Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the proposed
respondents 77 and 78 had purchased the property during the pendency of
the Suit, the Trial Court should not have permitted them to come on record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied upon a decision passed in
Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and Another1. Learned
counsel for the respondents/ proposed defendants 1 and 2 herein
contended that since as many as more than 70 people having impleaded in
the pending Suit, there is no reason for the petitioner to object for
impleading these respondents as defendants in the Suit.
8. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
was with regard to third parties seeking to come on record in cross suits
i.e., a mortgage suit and specific performance suit. The scope for
impleading in those cases is limited, unlike the present suit, which is in the
nature of declaration. Even otherwise, the said judgment does not state
that there is absolute bar for impleading subsequent purchasers of the part
of the plaint schedule property.
9. The above quoted judgment was recently considered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Yogesh Goyanka vs Govind & Ors.2, in a similar fact
situation and allowed pendente lite purchasers to come on record. The
relevant portion of the order is extracted below;
"Contrary to this approach of the High Court, the law on
impleadment of subsequent transferees, as established by this Court
has evolved in a manner that liberally enables subsequent transferees
(2004) AIR (SC) 173
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 457
to protect their interests in recognition of the possibility that the
transferor pendente lite may not defend the title or may collude with
the plaintiff therein [See the decision of this Court in Amit Kumar
Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403 & A. Nawab John vs.
V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738].
18. Similarly, we also find fault with the order of the ADJ and its
misplaced reliance on Bibi Zubaida (supra). The only principle
emerging from the judgment of this Court in Bibi Zubaida (supra) is
that transferees pendente lite cannot seek impleadment as a matter of
right and to that extent, we agree with the ADJ. However, Bibi
Zubaida (supra) does not place a bar on impleadment of transferees
who purchase property without seeking leave of the Court. The
decision of the Court in Bibi Zubaida (supra) turns on its own facts;
the Court rejected the application for joinder therein noting that the
underlying suit was pending since 1983 and upheld the finding of the
Trial Court that the subsequent purchaser was not bona fide and
attempted to complicate and delay the underlying suit. Therefore, the
judgment in Bibi Zubaida (supra), being distinguishable on facts, does
not assist the Respondents herein."
10. The petitioner/plaintiff having permitted as many 70 defendants i.e
subsequent purchasers to come on record after the institution of the Suit,
cannot object to the application to implead the contesting respondents as
Defendants No.77 and 78. It is not the case of the petitioner that these
defendants were brought on record to frustrate the rights of the plaintiff. In
Suits of the present nature, it would be in the interest of the petitioner also,
the third parties, who purchased the properties are on record on their
volition, as there would not be any hindrance for execution of the decree.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is
dismissed. Since the Suit of the year 2012, the trial Court shall make
endeavor to dispose of the Suit within a period of one year. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 06.11.2024
Pnr
