Telangana High Court

M.Sakku Bai vs K.Srinivas And 6 Others on 22 March, 2024

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

            CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2823 of 2022
ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the

order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the III Additional District Judge,

Sanga Reddy in I.A.No.778 of 2021 in O.S.No.47 of 2014.

2. The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner /

plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead the respondent

Nos.5 to 7 as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit and for consequential

amendments wherever necessary. By the impugned order, the trial

Court dismissed the said application with costs.

3. Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri V.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.5 to 7. Perused the entire material available on

record.

4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the trial Court having allowed the implead petition

with regard to the first transferee i.e., defendant No.4, grossly erred

in not allowing the application filed seeking to implead the

subsequent transferees i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 7 on record. He

further contended that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are trying to encroach

LNA, J

the suit schedule property. Hence, he prayed to allow this Revision

Petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7

contended that the petitioner is claiming property in Sy.No.950,

whereas the property claimed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 forms part

of Sy.No.949 and the trial court having observed the said fact,

rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, which

warrants no interference by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 placed reliance

on the judgment of the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh in

Brig. Chatrapati Singh Dev Vs. Amulya Kumar Padhi and

others 1 and the judgment of the combined High Court for the State

of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Sogra Begum Vs. Ghousia

Begum and others 2

7. In Brig. Chatrapati Singh Dev's case (1st cited supra), the

High Court held as under:-

"The learned Junior Civil Judge was in error in holding that a petition to impleadment of a party cannot contain the consequential relief of the amendments to be made and that such prayer amounts to claiming two reliefs in

(2005) 5 ALD 315

2017(5) ALD 122

LNA, J

one petition. In view of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, which lays down that all petitions filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 22 CPC shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments, and that a petition without such relief should be rejected."

8. Having held so, the High Court found fault with the order of

the trial Court in dismissing the petition filed under Order I Rule

10 CPC.

9. In fact, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is in

favour of the revision petitioner and squarely applies to the facts of

present case.

10. In Sogra Begum Vs. Ghousia Begum's (2nd cited supra), it

is a case where Order I Rule 10(2) and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC

petitions were allowed without seeking consequential amendment

to plaint as required under Rule 28 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, an

application was filed seeking leave of court to amend plaint filed

after completion of entire trial and the suit is posted for arguments

and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court, which

was upheld by the High Court.

LNA, J

11. In the case on hand, the petitioner filed the application

seeking to implead the proposed respondent Nos.5 to 7 as

defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit and for making consequential

amendments wherever necessary. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is

not applicable to the case on hand.

12. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the rival

submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties.

13. The material available on record discloses that the suit is

filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of

the suit schedule property which is located in Sy.No.950. During

the pendency of the suit, when the suit schedule property was

alienated by defendant No.1 in favour of one Nandyala Srinivas

Reddy, the said person was impleaded as defendant No.4 in the

suit.

14. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present application

seeking to implead the respondent Nos.5 to 7 as defendant Nos.5 to

7 in the suit on the ground that defendant No.4 appointed

respondent No.5 as General Power of Attorney, who in turn

executed registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 by

wrongly describing the property as Plot No.54, forming part of

LNA, J

Sy.Nos.948, 949, 950 to 954. Thereafter, respondent No.7-

company has taken assignment deeds for the said land and as such,

it is also involved in the sale transactions.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court a

copy of order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the trial Court in

I.A.No.501 of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2014. The said application

was filed by plaintiff seeking permission to amend the plaint and

the said application was allowed. In the said order, the trial Court

observed as under:-

"As from the record it is clear that the petitioner is claiming her land in Sy.No.950, the respondents set up a different story and contended that their land is different from the land of petitioner and they claimed land in view of Judgments in O.S.No.219 of 1982 and 388 of 2001. According to them, their land is situated in Sy.No.949 but not in Sy.No.950. More-over, the Sy.No.949 is not subject matter of present suit. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any relief in respect of Sy.No.949.

Whether the land is situated in Sy.No.949 or 950 is a crucial point, to be decided after full trial. At this stage by looking into the documents this court cannot say the land is situated in Sy.No.949 or 950. It is to be decided after trial that whether the petitioner and respondent No.1 and 4 are claiming same land or not. The burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove of it."

LNA, J

16. Therefore, it is manifest from the said order that there is

dispute with regard to the Survey Number. That apart, in the

present application, the petitioner averred that the property covered

under the sale deeds executed by the defendants is forming part of

the suit schedule property. In such an event, the trial Court erred in

dismissing the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that

the property purchased by the proposed respondent No.6 is in

Sy.No.950 and the property claimed by the petitioner is in

Sy.No.949.

17. It is also apposite to note when respondent No.4 who is the

subsequent purchaser from respondent No.1 was impleaded as