Anthati Vasantha vs Ilapuram Kusuma Kumari
2023 Latest Caselaw 3517 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3517 Tel
Judgement Date : 2 November, 2023

Telangana High Court

Anthati Vasantha vs Ilapuram Kusuma Kumari on 2 November, 2023

Bench: P.Sree Sudha

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2067 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

02.06.2023 in I.A.No.417 of 2023 in O.S.No.276 of 2019 passed

by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

2. O.S.No.276 of 2015 was filed by the respondent No.1

herein against respondents No.2 and 3 for specific performance

of Agreement of Sale dated 20.07.2014 and alternate relief to

pay the amount with interest was also sought for. During the

pendency of the said suit, petitioners herein filed I.A.No.417 of

2023, stating that they have purchased the suit schedule

property through registered sale deeds dated 27.07.2021 vide

document Nos.1143 & 1144 of 2021 on the file of Joint

Sub-Registrar, Chityal. The husband of the petitioner No.2

herein had received a message from Dharani portal of Nalgonda

District stating that a suit was pending in respect of the suit

lands purchased by them and on enquiry they came to know

about the pendency of the suit. The respondent No.3 did not

disclose about the pendency of the suit at the time of

registration with a malafide intention and he had also

mentioned wrong boundaries in the link documents. They

intend to contest the matter by filing a written statement. They

also stated that as they are enjoying the suit lands, they are

proper and necessary parties to the suit and hence requested

the Court to implead them as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit.

The trial Court observed that they are neither necessary parties

nor the proper parties to adjudicate the suit further and

accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said

Order, they preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. As per Order 1 rule 10 of C.P.C, necessary party is the

one in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed and

the proper party is the one who is necessary for final decision of

the questions involved in the proceedings. Therefore, the

addition of the parties is depending upon the judicial discretion

which has to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the

particular case. It was observed by the trial Court that as per

the record, respondent No.2 had sold the suit land to

respondent No.1 and accordingly an Agreement of Sale was

entered between them on 20.07.2014 for a total sale

consideration of Rs.14,81,250/- and received Rs.12,00,000/- as

advance and agreed to receive the balance of Rs.2,81,250/-

within one year from the date of execution of the Agreement of

Sale. When respondent No.1 approached the respondent No.2

on 10.06.2015 to pay the balance amount, he refused to receive

the same and then respondent No.1 came to know that

respondent No.2 executed the registered sale deed vide

document No.4482 of 2014 dated 06.11.2014 in favour of

respondent No.3 with a malafide intention to cause loss to him

and thus played fraud upon him. The respondent No.1

presented the plaint on 22.06.2015 and the same was

numbered as O.S.No.276 of 2015. In spite of service of notice,

respondent No.3 did not turn up before this Court, hence he

was set exparte. During the pendency of the suit, respondent

No.3 herein executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the

petitioners and sold the suit lands in their favour, as such they

are proper and necessary parties and therefore petitioners

requested the Court to implead them as parties in the suit for

proper adjudication of the dispute, but the trial Court observed

that if they are added as parties, the scope of the suit for

specific performance would be enlarged and it would be

converted into a suit for title and for effective adjudication of the

suit, the presence of such parties cannot be said to be

necessary parties and accordingly dismissed the application.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guruswamy

Nadar Vs. P.Lakshmi Ammal and others, in which it was

held as follows:

"Where a litigation is pending between a plaintiff and a defendant as to the right to a particular estate, the necessities of mankind required that the decision of the Court in the suit shall be finding, not only on the litigant parties, but also on those who derive title under them by alienations made pending the suit, whether such alienees had or had no notice of the pending proceedings. If this was not so, there could be no certainty that the litigation would ever come to an end".

He also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Kasturi Vs. Uyyamperumal and others, in which

it was held as follows:

"Second part of Order 1 rule 10 sub-rule (2) of the CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are - (i) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.

He further submitted that though the petitioners are not

necessary parties, they are proper parties.

5. Admittedly, the proper party is the one who is necessary

for final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings

and for proper adjudication of the case. Considering the

arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court

finds that the Order of the trial Court is erroneous and is liable

to be set aside and petitioners are to be impleaded in the suit to

avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and for proper adjudication

of the case.

6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting

aside the Order dated 02.06.2023, passed by the trial Court in