Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Ch.Subhadramma vs P Somdekhan Died Lrs 5 Others And Others on 25 October, 2024

APHC010385682016
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3460]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

         FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
             TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                               PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5268/2016

Between:

Ch.subhadramma, Kadapa Dist                             ...PETITIONER

                                  AND

P Somdekhan Died Lrs 5 Others and Others         ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. M SIVA JYOTHI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1.

   CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 30683/2016

   Between:

   Chevuri Subhadramma (died)           ...PETITIONER

                            AND

   Patan Sondekhan And 5 Others ...RESPONDENT
                                 2




  Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. M SIVA JYOTHI

  Counsel for the Respondent:

     1. SYED AZMATULLAH

The Court made the following:
                                    3




         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY


                       C.R.P.No.5268 of 2016
                                 And
                     CRP(Sr).No.30683 of 2016

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P(Sr).No.30683 of 2016 was filed against the order dated

25.07.2016 in E.A.No.62 of 2007 in E.P.No.85 of 2004 in O.S.No.81

of 1993 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet,

Kadapa District.

2. CRP(Sr).No.5268 of 2016 was filed against the order dated

25.07.2016 in E.A.No.57 of 2015 in E.A.No.62 of 2007 in E.P.No.85

of 2004 in O.S.No.81 of 1993 passed by the Principal Senior Civil

Judge,Rajampet, Kadapa District.

3. The facts leading to filing of these revisions are as under:

One Smt.Chevuri Subhadramma/petitioner herein filed

O.S.No.81 of 1993 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet

against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for specific performance of

agreement of sale dated 18.01.1991. During the pendency of the

suit, respondent No.1 died and his legal heirs were brought on

record as respondent Nos.3 to 6. The suit, on contest, was decreed

vide judgment and decree dated 08.06.1999 directing the

respondents to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner/

Smt.Chevuri Subhadramma. Aggrieved by the judgment and

decree, the respondents filed A.S.No.85 of 1999 and the same was

dismissed on 20.02.2004 confirming the judgment and decree of the

trial Court.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P.No.85 of 2004 before the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet as the defendants failed to

execute the sale deed in terms of the decree. The Senior Civil

Judge, Rajampet executed a registered sale deed in favour of the

petitioner on 07.10.2006 and the same was registered in the Sub

Registrar, Sidhavatam on 09.10.2006 vide registered document

No.789 of 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A.No.62 of 2007

for delivery of physical possession of the schedule property.

Pending E.A.No.62 of 2007, the petitioner/decree holder expired and

her husband by name Chevuri Sankar Reddy was brought on record

as legal representative. This Chevuri Sankar Reddy had executed a

registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 04.04.2012 vide

registered document No.346 of 2012 registered in the Sub Registrar

Office, Sidhavatam. Thereafter, Chevuri Sankar Reddy expired.

The petitioner having become the successor in title to the schedule

property filed E.A.No.57 of 2015 to come on record as decree holder

in E.A.No.62 of 2007. The trial Court dismissed E.A.No.57 of 2015

filed by the petitioner on the ground that application under Order 1

Rule 10 CPC cannot be made applicable to execution proceedings

and relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in

V.Govindarajulu died v. K.V.Ramana Murthy1.

5. The recitals in the sale deed in favour of the petitioner show

that the petitioner/plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the

said property and thereafter her husband late Sri Chevuri Sankar

Reddy and the property was delivered to the petitioner under the

registered sale deed. Since the registered sale deed mentioned

about delivery of possession in favour of this petitioner, the trial

Court rejected the application of the petitioner to come on record as

1998 (6) ALT 800

legal representative. Consequently, E.A.No.62 of 2007 filed for

delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC was also

dismissed. Hence, the revisions are filed.

6. Heard Sri M.Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Syed Azmatullah, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. As narrated above, the application for physical possession to

the decree holder pursuant to a registered sale deed executed by

the trial Court in execution of decree for specific performance stood

frustrated by the dismissal of such application. The trial Court

successfully ensured that the Respondents/Judgment debtors, who

suffered a decree and have lost title to the property by virtue of the

regd. sale deed, continue to remain in possession.

8. Coming to the merits of the impugned order, the trial Court

dismissed the application as implead application under Order 1 Rule

10 CPC was not applicable to the execution proceedings. In such a

scenario, there is no bar for the Court to exercise inherent power

under section 151 CPC and ensure delivery of possession of the

scheduled property is effected so that fruits of the decree are

received by the beneficiary.

9. This Court in Kurra Murali Krishna Yadav and others v. Sri

Lakshmi Rama Co-operative Building Society Ltd., Vijayawada

and others 2 in similar fact situation considered whether implead

application of subsequent purchasers at the stage of execution could

be allowed. In that case, the decree holder sought for impleading

subsequent purchasers in the execution proceedings to join in the

sale deed. It was opposed on the ground that in execution

proceedings, there is no provision for impleading third parties. This

Court after examining the respective contentions held at paragraphs

28,29 and 30 as under;

"28. We are now faced with a dichotomy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the view that in suits for specific performance, the correct course of action is to join the subsequent purchasers also in the sale deeds that need to be executed. In R.C. Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically directed this course of action even where

2022 (3) ALD 206 (AP)

the subsequent purchasers were not parties to the suit. On the other hand, the provisions of Order I Rule 10, as interpreted by this Court, do not lend themselves to impleading subsequent purchasers. At this stage, one significant aspect of these judgments has to be noticed. In all these judgments, the Court did not take the view that Order I Rule 10, prohibits or bars the impleading of third parties in an execution petition. The view taken is that, the applications under Order I Rule 10, are not maintainable in execution proceedings as the language of this provision restricts the application of this provision to live suits and pending matters. To put it in another way, the ratio is that the provisions of Order I Rule 10 are not applicable to implead petitions in execution petitions. Therefore there is no provision, in the Civil Procedure Code, governing the procedure for impleading subsequent purchasers at the stage of execution proceedings.

29. In such an event, the inherent powers of the Court, under Section 151 of CPC, can always be invoked. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 151 of CPC in Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanhayalal Bhargava, (1966) 3 SCR 856 = AIR 1966 SC 1899 = (1967) 37 Comp. Cas. 42, in Paragraph 5, held as follows :

"Having regard to the said decisions, the scope of the inherent power of a Court under Section 151 of the Code may be defined thus : The inherent power of a Court is in addition to and

complementary to the powers expressly conferred under the Code. But that power will not be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other provisions of the Code. If there are express provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic, they give rise to a necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in respect of the said topic otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said provisions. Whatever limitations are imposed by construction on the provisions of Section 151 of the Code, they do not control the undoubted power of the Court conferred under Section 151 of the Code to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court."

30. The presence of the purchasers in the sale deeds is essential to the completion of the process and in the absence of any specific provision for impleading the purchasers, the decree holder can always rely upon the provisions of Section 151 and seek invocation of the inherent power of the Court to do justice."

10. In the light of the above judgment, there was no bar for the

executing Court to have invoked inherent powers under section 151

CPC and allow the petitioner to come on record for delivery of

possession. Additionally, the petitioner could also be treated as

legal representative representing the estate of the deceased decree

holder.

11. Another way of looking at this case is that in the light of the

impugned order, the only remedy for the petitioner would be to file a

separate suit for recovery of possession. Even if a separate suit is

filed, it is not as though the defendants/Respondents have a

substantial defense in such a suit and in course of time, the said suit

will have to be decreed and possession will have to be delivered.