Smt. Karra Varsha, vs Sunke Prabhakar And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2181 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1603 of 2019

ORDER:

This revision is filed challenging the order dated 26.06.2019 in

I.A.No.141 of 2019 in O.S.No.45 of 2012 passed by the I Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder an application filed by the

petitioner - third party seeking impleadment as defendant No.3 in

O.S.No.45 of 2012 was dismissed.

2. The suit O.S.No.45 of 2012 was filed by the respondent Nos.1

and 2 herein against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for declaration of title

and recovery of possession in respect of property admeasuring 252 sq.

yards in Sy.No.1317/A situated at Vavilalpally locality of Karimnagar

Town.

3. The petitioner filed the impleadment application stating that she

purchased the suit property from Penchala Jaggaiah/defendant No.1 -

respondent No.3 herein under registered sale deed bearing document

No.9386 of 2017 dated 17.10.2017 for a sale consideration of

Rs.27,00,000/-. In pursuance thereof, possession was delivered to her

and she is paying property tax. She came to know that the vendor has

given evidence before the Court below that he has not sold the house

to the petitioner at any point of time, which shows that her vendor has

not properly contested the suit and therefore, to protect her rights she

seeks to implead herself, being necessary and proper party.

4. The application for impleadment was opposed by the respondent

Nos.1 and 2/plaintffs stating that legal notice dated 07.11.2017 was

issued to the petitioner not to purchase the suit schedule property and

there was no reply to the legal notice. The petitioner married the

grandson of the defendant No.1 and she became a family member of

the defendant No.1. The petitioner has not paid the sale consideration.

The alleged sale deed is a created document for the purpose of bank

loan and to create multiple litigations over the said property. It is not

stated as to how the petitioner received information about the

pendency of the suit. Petitioner, who is a pendente lite purchaser,

cannot be held to be a holder of legally enforceable right.

The impleadment petition is filed on the instructions of the defendant

No.1. The implead application is collusive and is filed to delay the trial

of the suit.

5. The Court below dismissed the application, under the impugned

order, recording a finding that the petitioner received a legal notice

dated 07.11.2017, though the sale deed is executed earlier to the legal

notice i.e. 17.10.2017. The petitioner has not taken appropriate steps

to come on record by filing a petition in the year 2017 itself, but chose

to file a petition after examination of the defendant No.1, as D.W.1.

It is not stated as to who informed the petitioner herein that D.W.1

has denied execution of the sale deed in her favour.

The Court below referred to the judgments of this Court in YEDDULA

SATHEESH KUMAR REDDY v. SANKIREDDY BAKKIREDDY ASEERVAD

KUMAR REDDY [2016 (5) ALT 36] and PANNALA RENUKA v. KAVALI

(RAJAMOUNI) VENKATAIAH [2006 (6) ALD 761] and came to the

conclusion that the petitioner is a pendente lite purchaser and cannot

be treated as an independent holder of any legally enforceable right

and not a proper and necessary party to be added as defendant No.3

in the suit.

6. Ms. Chithralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that there was no injunction order granted by the Court below.

Thus, the sale of the suit property by the defendant No.1 was not

prohibited. The petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser, is entitled

to come on record to protect her interest. Even if the petitioner is a

pendente lite purchaser, no prejudice would be caused to the

respondents, as the petitioner is claiming through the defendant No.1.

In support of her contentions, the learned counsel relied on a decision

of the Supreme Court in THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LIMITED v.

NANAK BUILDERS AND INVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED1

7. Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2,

submitted that the petitioner purchased the suit property having

knowledge of pendency of the suit. The notice dated 07.11.2017 was

issued to the petitioner but immediately thereafter she did not make

any efforts to get herself impleaded. The sale deed is created for

defeating the rights of the plaintiffs. The petitioner being pendente lite

purchaser does not have any right to come on record as the

defendant.

8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2,

this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Court below

does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. The petitioner,

admittedly, is a pendente lite purchaser. The ratio laid down by the

Supreme Court in THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LIMITED's case

(1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said

case, the Supreme Court was dealing with an application for

impleadment filed by a subsequent purchaser in a specific performance

suit. On facts, the Supreme Court held that if a purchaser pendente

lite is not made a party to the pending suit, there may be a situation

(2013) 5 SCC 397

where transferor pendente lite may not defend the title properly as he

has no interest remaining, or may collude with the plaintiff in which

case interest of the purchaser pendente lite will be ignored.

9. Though the petitioner claims to have purchased the suit

property in the year 2017, having received the notice dated

07.11.2017 from the plaintiffs, she did not choose to respond. The sale

deed of the petitioner is hit by doctrine of lis pendense under Section

52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit is posted for further

evidence of the defendants as the evidence of the plaintiffs is closed

and D.W.1 has been examined. The suit is filed in the year 2012 and

impleadment application is filed in the year 2019. The petitioner has

not made out good grounds to implead herself as party defendant.

Further, the averment that her vendor is not properly contesting the

suit does not appear to be genuine, in the light of the assertion of the

plaintiffs that the petitioner married the grandson of the defendant

No.1 and now she is the family member of the defendant No.1.

This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is permitted to come

on record, it will cause prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs.

There are no merits in the revision.

The civil revision petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J July 22, 2021 DSK