Telangana High Court
Smt B.Ramadevi vs M/S Prime Properties And 2 Others on 5 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1017 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under
Article 227 of Constitution of India by the aggrieved
petitioner in I.A.No.434 of 2018 in O.S.No.900 of 2001 on
the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar, whereunder her request for
impleadement as defendant in the original suit through her
petition under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w 151 Code of Civil
Procedure (for short 'CPC') was dismissed by the trial
Court.
2. It appears from the impugned order, the
petitioner wanted to implead herself as defendant No.3 in
the above said suit and filed the above said interlocutory
application along with her own affidavit, wherein she has
claimed that the property shown in the plaint schedule was
originally owned by one Nawab Hashim Ali Khan @ Hashim
Ali. The said property was purchased by the grand-father
of the said Hashim Ali under a registered sale deed,
bearing document No.707/1952 and there were no further
alienations by Nawab Hashim Ali Khan under any
registered document, but number of persons set up illegal
claims in the property.
3. The petitioner while claiming that she has
purchased an extent of Ac.6-00 in Sy.No.107 under an
agreement of sale became the owner of the property, but
the respondent/plaintiff and respondents/defendants
without having any right over the suit schedule property
created some litigation. Therefore, she wanted to be added
as 3rd defendant for better adjudication of all the issues.
4. The said application was disputed by the
respondent/plaintiff as well as the
respondents/defendants. According to the 1st
respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner is claiming right
through one Mir Hashim Ali Khan, but the said Hashim Ali
Khan is an imposter and not a real Hashim Ali Khan.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot acquire any right over the
property. In support of his claim, the 1st
respondent/plaintiff has pleaded that the real Hasham Ali
Khan was born in 1950, whereas as per the admitted
records/documents i.e., driving licence, aadhaar card, LIC
documents of said Hashim Ali Khan, the date of birth was
14.05.1952. Whereas the sale deed through which the
grandfather of alleged Hashim Ali Khan purchased the
property vide document No.707 of 1952 was executed on
30.04.1952. The then partners of 1st respondent filed a
writ petition against the said imposter. Since the petitioner
is claiming title through such an imposter, she cannot be
made as party to the suit between respondent/plaintiff and
respondents/defendants. Thereby, sought for dismissal of
the petition.
5. The other defendants i.e., defendants in the
original suit have also disputed the contention of the
petitioner herein and prayed for dismissal of the
application.
6. The trial Court having appreciated the
contentions of both parties, and after perusing the entire
record, dismissed the application under the impugned
order.
7. Heard both parties.
8. Now the following points arose for consideration
in the present revision:
1. Whether the petitioner herein is proper and necessary party
to the proceedings in O.S.No.900 of 2001?
2. Whether the petitioner is right in contending that without
her presence the suit vide O.S.No.900 of 2001 cannot be
effectively and completely adjudicated?
3. Whether the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to
O.S.No.900 of 2001 and whether the trial Court was wrong
in dismissing her petition?
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while
referring the sale deed and other documents relied on by
the respondent/plaintiff and respondents/defendants, has
submitted that when once petitioner claimed that she
purchased the suit schedule property from the original
owner under a valid document, prima facie it is quite clear
that the presence of the petitioner as party to the
proceedings is quite essential. Otherwise, there could not
be a final and proper adjudication of the entire litigation. It
was also the case of petitioner that the respondent/plaintiff
and respondents/defendants have no right over the
property, but created a false allegation to usurp her
property. But, the Court below failed to consider her claim
in a proper way.
10. Whereas, learned counsel for 1st
respondent/plaintiff while referring the orders of Hon'ble
Apex Court and High Court in some other connected
matters, submitted that when the litigation was
commenced way back in 2001 and in view of multiple
interlocutory applications filed by one party or other
seeking their impleadement and in view of the other
interlocutory applications by which the trial Court could
not have been proceeded with the disposal, there was
specific directions to the trial Court for expedite disposal of
the suit. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner herein. He has also
submitted that the documents placed before the Court
including the photocopy of the sale supposed to have been
obtained in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, clearly
shows that the document was executed much prior to the
original date of birth of the said imposter. The documents
placed before the Court further indicates that details of the
vendor of the petitioner clearly indicates that he is not real
Hashim Ali, but he is an imposter. Therefore, on the guise
of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by such
an imposter, she cannot be added as party to the suit,
more particularly when there is no claim by the
respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner. He has also
argued that the respondent/plaintiff being author of the
suit cannot be compelled to add a particular party, against
whom he was not asking any relief.
11. As could be seen from the entire martial placed
before the Court the litigation was commenced about more
than 20 years ago. There were multiple suits and other
proceedings. As per the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent No.1 wherein a portion of the orders of Hon'ble
Apex Court and this High Court in other proceedings
between various parties were extracted, it clearly indicates
the trial Court was directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court for
quick disposal of the suit. Though the extension of time
was asked by the trial Court, the same was allowed with a
specific direction to the trial Court for quick disposal of the
suit even without entertaining any interlocutory application
for impleadement.
12. As could be seen from the material documents
placed by the 1st respondent the date of birth of the vendor
of petitioner herein is 14.05.1952 whereas the sale deed
though which some property said to have been acquired in
his name was obtain on 30.04.1952. Therefore, prima facie
it shows that a fake document has been created in favour
of one Hashim Ali. When the 1st respondent categorically
claimed that the vendor of the petitioner is an imposter and
produced material, the petitioner who is claiming title over
the property through such a document, cannot be termed
as proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings.
13. As rightly submitted by the respondent/plaintiff
when he is not claiming any relief against the petitioner,
there was no necessity for the petitioner to be added as
party to the proceedings. If really, she has got some
grievance, she can as well file/initiate necessary
proceedings including suit for declaration of her title by
payment of required Court fee. But, she cannot add herself
as a party to the proceedings for the sake of obtaining
declaration in her favour.
14. Even if the suit filed by respondent
No.1/plaintiff is disposed without the presence of the
petitioner, it may not have any impact on the contentions
raised by the petitioner herein. The Judgment that may be
passed in O.S.No.900 of 2001 between respondent
No.1/plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendants will
not bind the present petitioner and the trial Court cannot
give any finding about the claim of present petitioner in the
suit filed by responded/plaintiff Thereby, the trial Court
rightly dismissed the interlocutory application and while
exercising original jurisdiction, such order cannot be
interfered with.
15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. No. costs.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Date: 05.07.2024
PSSK
