Tagore Township Welfare ... vs B Suguna Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 4972 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.219 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Article 227

of Constitution of India to set aside the order, dated 26.12.2018,

passed in I.A.No.2158 of 2018 in O.S.No.100 of 2002 on the file of

the Principal District Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. O.S.No.100 of 2002 was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2

against respondent Nos.3 to 5 seeking partition and separate

possession of the schedule A and B properties situated at

Tattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal. Subsequently,

respondent Nos.4 to 56 were impleaded in the main suit. The

revision petitioners represented by petitioner No.2, who is the

Secretary of Tagore Township Welfare Association (petitioner

No.1) filed I.A.No.2158 of 2018 for impleadment as defendant

Nos.57 to 103 in the main suit.

3. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 47 are different plot owners in the lay out

in survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram Village. The petitioners

are bonafide purchasers of plots in carved layout of survey Nos.90

and 91 of Tattiannaram Village. Initially, one late Maddi

Satyanarayana Reddy was the owner of land in Sy.Nos.90 and 91

of Tattiannaram Village, Abdulapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. He executed registered General Power of Attorney

(G.P.A.) in favour of one C.V.Ramana Kumar and M.V.Ranga

Chary. The G.P.A. holders prepared layout for

Ac.24-08 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram

village, Abdulapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Further the

registered sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioner and

other members of the petitioner-Association.

4. The petitioners further pleaded that said Maddi

Satyanarayana Reddy filed a false claim along with Mohd.Khasim

in O.S.No.184 of 1989. Said Mohd.Khasim sought declaration for

land in Sy.Nos.90 and 91. While so, the petitioners pleaded that

there is no land available in Sy.Nos.90 and 91 to seek declaration.

The entire land has been converted into plots and sold out to third

parties and decree was obtained in O.S.No.184 of 1989

fraudulently without the knowledge of the petitioners. The

petitioners filed O.S.No.302 of 1990 on the file of Principal Senior

Civil Judge and the said suit has been dismissed vide judgment and

decree, dated 08.06.1998. The petitioners preferred appeal in

A.S.No.912 of 1999 and the said appeal has been allowed by this

Court vide judgment, dated 23.03.2018. Thereafter, review

petitions filed by said Mohd.Khasim were also dismissed

vide order, dated 03.07.2018, and the judgment in A.S.No.912 of

1999 attained finality. The petitioners learnt about the present suit

filed for partition by respondent Nos.1 and 2, wherein the schedule

property of sy.Nos.90 and 91 was also included as schedule

property for partition between respondent Nos.1 and 2 and 3 to 5

and as the children of Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy do not have any

claim on the registered sale deeds of the members of petitioner-

Association. As such, the petitioners are proper and necessary

parties to the said suit and they filed I.A.No.2158 of 2018 to

implead them as defendant Nos.57 to 103 in the main suit.

5. Respondent Nos.1, 2 filed counter opposing the petition on the

ground that the petitioners are not necessary and proper parties and

the judgment in A.S.No.912 of 1999 is not binding on them. They

have denied the sale of the land of GPA holders in sy.Nos.90 and

91 to third party purchasers.

6. Respondent Nos. 11, 45, 48, 49 and 50 filed counter

affidavits denying the case of the petitioners and similarly,

respondent No.10 also filed counter opposing the petition and

contended that the petitioners do not have any right in the subject

matter of the suit.

7. The trial Court after considering the submissions of both the

counsel and after considering the material on record dismissed the

impleadment application to implead the petitioners in the main suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the plots in the lay out in

survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram village through registered

GPA holders by the owner late Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy and

lay out was prepared for Ac.24-08 guntas and about 285 plots were

carved out and the petitioners purchased the said plots under

registered sale deeds. The present suit is filed for partition by the

daughters of late Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy, wherein the land in

survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram is also part of the schedule

property. Since the petitioner-Association representing the other

petitioners filed the present application to implead them as

proposed defendants in the main suit, otherwise the valuable right

claimed by the petitioners would be defeated. In support of his

contentions, he relied on the following decisions:

i) Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v.Jethbhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya1.

ii) Pruthvirajsingh Nodhubha Jadeja (Dead) by Legal representatives v.Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah2.

        ii)    S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs.v.Jagannath (Dead) by
               Lrs. And others.3
       iii)    A.V.Papayya Sastry v.Govt.of A.P.4
       iv)     Badami (Deceased) by Her Lr v.Bhali.5
       v)      Janardhanam Prasad v.Ramdas.6
       vi )    Satya Pal Anand v.State of Madhya Pradesh7.
       vii)     Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v.Regency

Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited.8

vii) Charu Kishor Mehta v.Prakash Patel.9

He also relied on the order of this Court in CRP.No.137 of

2022, dated 07.04.2022.

9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the

trial Court has rightly refused to implead the members of the

(2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 700

(2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 533

(1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1

(2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221

(2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 574

(2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 174

(2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767

(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417

Special Leave Petition (C)No.11030/2022

petitioner-Association as defendant Nos. 57 to 103. He further

submits that the petitioners have not filed any documents to show

the ownership over plots in sy.Nos.90 and 91 and they have no

locus standi to file the present petition. He also submits that the

revisional Court cannot consider the documents which are being

produced before this Court. He relied on the judgment of Bhukya

Aruna v. ARKS Cold Storage Ltd., Hyderabad10.

10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.11, 45, 48, 49 and 50

submits that after death of Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy, his wife

along with her children succeeded to the schedule properties and

sold entire property total admeasuring Ac.70-39 guntas situated at

Tattiannaram village. He further submits that the family members

of late Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy filed the present suit for

partition and trial has been completed and the suit is coming up for

submissions of both the counsel. The petitioners have filed the

present application to implead as defendants belatedly without any

locus standi. As such, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the

2008(5) ALD 53

application and the impugned order does not suffer from illegality.

He relied on the following decisions:

i. Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v.Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited11.

ii) Raja Pushpa Properties Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v.B.Venkatamma12.

       iii)     Kasturi v.Iyyamperumal13.
       iv)      Bhukya Aruna v.ARKS Cold Storage (P) Ltd., Hyderabad.14
       v)       M.Revenna v.Anjamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives.15
       vi)      Sogra Begum v.Ghousia Begum16.
       vii)     M/s.Prime Properties, a registered partnership firm, Rep.by its

Partner and Authorized Rep, Sri Najeeb Ahmed v.Mr.Alam Khan and others.17

11. Thus, after hearing the submissions of both the counsel and

having perused the material on record and the decisions relied by

both the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, whether

the order, dated 26.12.2018, passed in I.A.No.2158 of 2018 in

O.S.No.100 of 2002 is sustainable under law?

12. Initially, on consideration of the impugned order, it would

disclose that the suit was filed for seeking partition and separate

possession by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against

respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein in the year 2002. Thereafter,

(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417

2020 (4) ALD 281 (TS)

(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 733

2008(5) ALD 53

(2019)4 Supreme Court Cases 332

2017(5) ALD 122

CRP.No.136 of 2022 (dated 07.04.2022)

defendant Nos. 4 to 56 have been impleaded in the main suit.

There are about 54 third party purchasers who allegedly purchased

plots in Sy.Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram village. The petitioners

except making statement have not filed any documents and did not

furnish details about their ownership over the plots which are

allegedly situated in sy.Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram Village and

held there are no locus standi to the petitioners to be impleaded as

defendants in the main suit and they are not necessary and proper

parties in the suit for partition and refused the application.

13. The suit in O.S.No.100 of 2002 was filed by respondent

Nos.1 and 2 seeking partition of schedule A and B properties. The

schedule A property contains land in survey No.90 and 91 situated

at Tattiannaram village from the GPA holders of late Maddi

Satyanarayana Reddy. The petitioners would further submit that

the possession over the schedule plots and title and ownership of

their respective plots in survey Nos.90 and 91 have been

adjudicated in A.S.No.912 of 1999 and the same has been attained

finality. The petitioners would further submit that when they learnt

about filing of suit, they moved the present application to implead

them as defendant Nos.57 to 103.

14. In Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v.Jethabhai

Kalabhai Zalavadiya18, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at

para No.10 held as under:

" Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence in Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code empowers the Court to substitute a party in the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. If the Court is satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and also that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in controversy to substitute a party in the suit, it may direct it to be done. When the Court finds that in the absence of the persons sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and completely settled, the Court would do justice by impleading such persons. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to the Court to deal with such a situation which may result in prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment of the said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit."

15. A perusal of the entire material on record would disclose that

the petitioners have also filed copies of registered sale deeds to

show that they are the owners of different plots situated in survey

Nos.90 and 91 situated at Tattiannaram village and having

(2017) 9 SCC 700

- 10 -

purchased the same from the GPA holders of late Maddi

Satyanarayana Reddy. They have also filed copies of judgment in

A.S.No.912 of 1999 wherein their title and ownership has been

attained finality.

16. Since the present suit is filed for partition by respondent

Nos.1 and 2, wherein the schedule property would clearly indicate

the land in survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram village which

was already sold by Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy through GPA

holders and the petitioners acquired title through registered sale

deeds to their respective plots by forming themselves as Tagore

Township Welfare Association represented by petitioner on behalf

of other petitioners filed the present application.

17. It appears that O.S.No.100 of 2002 was filed for partition,

wherein evidence was adduced by both parties and the case is

coming-up for arguments of both parties. However, having regard

to the fact that the case of petitioners, it is settled principle of law

that a petition can be filed for impleadment of proper and necessary

party at any stage of the proceedings and liberty is given to them if

they are directly affected by the result of the suit. Since the

- 11 -

petitioners claim that their title and ownership in respect of plots

situated in survey Nos.90 and 91 which is part of schedule

properties in the said suit and the documents filed by them would

clearly fortify their contention that they have purchased the said

plots under registered sale deeds from GPA holders as stated supra.

As such, the property has been purchased under valid documents

their title and ownership has been adjudicated by this Court in

A.S.No.912 of 1999. In the appeal suit, the petitioners succeeded

and established their title and ownership and the same has been

attained finality.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, I feel that the petitioners

are proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of the

suit and they entitled to be impleaded as parties. If they are not

impleaded as parties in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2,

any decree that may be passed in their favour would again subject

to further multiplicity of litigation and impleadment of these

petitioners for effective adjudication of the interest of the parties

would be at once can be disposed of.

- 12 -

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that

since the petitioners have established their title basing on the

documents filed herein that they have direct and substantial interest

in the subject matter of suit and such interest would affect directly

by the decree that may be passed in the present partition suit and

as such, their presence as parties to the suit is necessary. Therefore,

the impugned order suffers from infirmities and liable to be set

aside.

20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The

order impugned, dated 26.12.2018, passed in I.A.No.2158 of 2018

in O.S.No.100 of 2002 is set aside. As a sequel, I.A.No.2158 of

2018 is allowed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY,J 10.10.2022 Nvl

- 13 -