Telangana High Court
Ileni Venkat Malla Reddy vs Vangala Pratap Reddy on 6 September, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No. 2037 and 2042 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER :
Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff. He filed
O.S. No. 461 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Jangaon seeking permanent injunction restraining
Defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the suit schedule
property. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No. 575 of 2023 and
obtained ex parte injunction. Thereafter, revision petitioner -
proposed defendant No. 3 had taken out I.A. Nos. 148 and 149
of 2024 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking his impleadment
in I.A.No. 575 of 2023 and O.S.No. 461 of 2023 respectively.
Petitioner, inter alia, contended that he is the absolute owner
and possessor of land admeasuring 8404.75 square yards in
Survey Nos. 13/E1, 123/E2 and 125/D1 situated at
Venkateshwara Colony, Shameerpet Village, Jangaon Mandal
and District, through a registered sale deed dated 29.10.2015;
subsequently he also sold away some plots to various
purchasers. It is stated that vendor of plaintiff on the basis of
sham and bogus documents, filed O.S.No. 287 of 2015 against
third parties on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at
Jangaon in respect of the suit schedule property; subsequently
by order in I.A.No.5 of 2017 withdrew the suit with liberty to file
a fresh comprehensive suit. Thereafter, O.S.No. 21 of 2022 was
filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession with
perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property on the
file of the Senior Civil Jude Court at Jangaon against petitioner
and during the pendency of the said suit, vendor of plaintiff sold
suit schedule property to plaintiff through a registered sale deed
dated 06.07.2023 and the said suit was also withdrawn on
18.07.2023 as not pressed. It is relevant to state that plaintiff
and his vendor colluded with each other, created a sham and
bogus sale deed vide document No. 1187/2023; managed the
revenue authorities and obtained mutation in revenue records
with an intention to grab his house plots. When the land was
converted into house plots and Abadi, the Rights in Land and
Pattedar Passbooks Act is not applicable to the abadi lands.
Suppressing the true facts, plaintiff filed the present suit
against some third parties and fraudulently obtained ex parte
ad-interim injunction order. In fact, defendants in the suit are
по way concerned to the suit schedule property. Under the
guise of the said order, plaintiff tried to grab the house plots of
revision petitioner in Survey Nos. 123/E1, 123/E2 and 125/D1
of Shameerpet Village.
2. To the said Applications, plaintiff filed a detailed
counter stating that petitioner cannot claim himself to be the
absolute owner and possessor of any extent in plaint schedule
property as revenue records do not support his claim. Till today,
plaint schedule property was not converted into non-
agricultural use, as such, petitioner cannot own any extent in
yards and he is also not authorized to sell any part of suit land
in yards to third parties as he did not obtain any approved lay
out from the Director of Town and Country Planning. The
registered sale deeds of vendor or petitioner for that matter,
cannot help him to intervene as he has no locus standi. It is
stated that sale in favour of his vendor was declared to be
invalid as Mubarak Educational Society did not pass any
Resolution authorizing the Secretary of said Society to sell the
land in favour of vendor of petitioner. In para 11 of the written
statement filed by petitioner in O.S. No. 21 of 2022, petitioner
merelv denied the above fact, but law remains the same that
Society should pass Resolution authorizing the President or
Secretary of a Society to sell any land which is in the holding of
the Society. Plaintiff further stated that he had no necessity to
mention about earlier legal proceedings when a suit for
permanent injunction is filed basing on title and possession
supported by revenue record and dharani entries. It is only
imagination of petitioner but not based on legal principles. Even
if the documents in his favour are sham or bogus, as pleaded by
petitioner, he cannot question the same and only his (plaintiff's)
vendor can question those documents. Petitioner being third
party to the documents in his favour and in favour of his
vendor, his only remedy is to file a civil suit for declaration and
cancellation of those documents independently. Petitioner has
no business to seek impleadment in the suit as no relief is
claimed against him; it is against the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court. Without specific pleadings and relief
against petitioner, he cannot seek to implead as defendant in
his suit. It is stated that he has every right to choose his
opponent and claim relief as he wants. It is stated that
petitioner or his vendor cannot question purchase of plaint
schedule property as they did not file any record to show
mutation of suit property. Any illegal and unauthorized sale in
respect of plaint schedule property cannot discredit the legal
title, possession and right to conveyance in favour of plaintiff's
vendor or for that matter against him also. The Applications
ought to have been rejected at SR stage itself as petitioner did
not file any revenue record to show his possession or title to
plaint schedule property. Another ground is that this petition is
belatedly filed almost 8 years after the date of his alleged
purchase on 21.10.2015 and these petitions are not
maintainable as land was not mutated in favour of petitioner till
today and he did not acquire saleable interest to the third
parties. Petitioner suppressed the orders of revenue authorities
on his Applications for mutation. He has to file independent suit
for declaration of title and recovery of possession against his
vendor and Mubarak Educational Society and cannot seek any
relief in this suit. The Applications are not maintainable in view
of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the effect that
plaintiff has to choose his opponents. These Applications are
filed to avoid Court fee and also to avoid making Mubarak
Educational Society and his vendor as parties.
3. The Court below, having considered the rival
submissions, while answering the point for consideration, at
paras 24 and 25, held as under:
" 24. On perusal of Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 which are
certified copies of plaint in OS.No.287/2015 and docket order in
OS.No.287/2015 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court at
Jangaon, it is seen that the vendor of respondent No.1/plaintiff by name
Sri. Allam Chinnapu Reddy filed a suit for perpetual injunction against
some third parties and the said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a
fresh suit. On perusal of Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 which are certified copies of
plaint, written statement of defendant Nos.1,2, counter affidavit of
respondent No.1 and docket order in O.S.No. 21/2022 on the file of
Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Jangaon it is disclosed that the vendor
of respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and
recovery of possession with perpetual injunction against petitioner
herein and others and that the said suit was dismissed as not pressed.
Merely because the vendor of respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed suits
against the petitioner herein and others, the petitioner herein will not
automatically be entitled to be impleaded as party, he should be a
proper and necessary party to the present suit. On perusal of Ex.P10
which is certified copy of registered sale deed document No.1756/2001
dated 20/8/2001, it is disclosed that one R. Laxma Reddy sold an
extent of Ac.8.12 gts. of agriculture land in Sy.Nos. 122/E1, 123/E2,
125/D1 to Mubarak Educational Society represented by its President M.
Abdul Mannan Khan. On perusal of Ex.P11 which is certified copy of
registered sale deed document No. 3885/2006, it is disclosed that
Mubarak Educational Society represented by its President M. Abdul
Mannan Khan sold an extent of Ac.7.04 gts. of agriculture land in
Sy.Nos.122/E1, 123/E2, 125/D1 to Bairagoni Srinivas, Damera
Srinivas, Yalapati Laxma Reddy, Chithakindi Yadagiri, on perusal of
Ex.P12 which is certified copy of registered sale deed document No.
5746/2007 dated: 17/11/2007 it is disclosed that Bairagoni Srinivas,
Damera Srinivas, Yalapati Laxma Reddy, Chithakindi Yadagiri sold an
extent of Ac.7.04 gts. of agriculture land in Sy.Nos.122/E1, 123/E2,
125/D1 to Lingala Kishore Reddy, Ganesh Manohar Singh, Gopal
Lohiya, Vengalshetty Yamuna Rao. Further on perusal of Ex.P1 which is
original registered sale deed document no. 8333/2015, dated:
29.10.2015 it is disclosed that L. Laxmi Devi who is wife of late Sri.
Kishore Reddy along with Ganesh Manohar Singh, Gopal Lohiya,
Vengalshetty Yamuna Rao sold plots with numbers 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
31, 32, 34, 48, 49, 57, 61, 63, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 85, 86 with total
extent of 8404.75 sq. yards in sy.nos 122/E1, 123/E2, 125/D1, to
petitioner herein. As rightly argued by learned counsel for respondent
No.1/plaintiff, there is no document filed by petitioner herein showing
the approved layout under which the plots were divided and under
which the agriculture land was converted into non-agriculture land.
Even otherwise as per the petitioner himself, he sold out some of the
plots purchased by him and there is no clarity given by the petitioner as
to how many plots were sold out by him and how much extent of land is
left in his name. Even there is no clarity given by the petitioner as to
what are the boundaries of land which is allegedly remaining in the
name of petitioner. The present suit is filed in respect of Sy.No.
125/D3/3, admeasuring Ac.1.10 gts. and Sy. No. 123/E2/B/2
admeasuring Ac. 3.09 gts. which is different from Sy. No. 122/E1,
123/E2, 125/D1 as shown in Ex.P1. In the citations relied by learned
counsel for petitioner, the facts and circumstances are different and
there was a justified claim by proposed party seeking impleadment. As
rightly argued by learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff there is
no relief sought by respondent No.1/plaintiff against petitioner herein
and respondent No.1/plaintiff did not allege that petitioner herein
interfered with his possession. This a suit filed for bare perpetual
injunction and the issue involved is, to see whether respondent
No.1/plaintiff was in lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit
and whether there was any interference of his possession. For the said
issue to be resolved this court is of opinion that petitioner is not a
necessary party in whose absence the issue cannot be settled. Further
as the petitioner who was defendant No.1 in OS.No.21/2022 on the file
of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court and who filed written statement had
every knowledge about the claim made by vendor of respondent
No.1/plaintiff herein and as rightly argued by learned counsel for
petitioner, it appears that petitioner did not take any steps against the
alleged sale in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff's vendor. Definitely
the result of this suit will not bind the petitioner and petitioner may
always file a separate suit if his rights are infringed. Further if suppose
this petition is allowed this court has to adjudicate the alleged cause of
action of the petitioner/proposed party, which will fall outside the scope
of the present suit which is filed for perpetual injunction only. Therefore
this court is of opinion that petitioner is not a proper or necessary party
to this suit, so as to implead him in OS.No. 461/2023.
25. In the result the petition is dismissed without costs".
4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.06.2024,
petitioner/proposed defendant No.3 filed revision petitions.
Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala
submits that the Court below ought to have seen that when
plaintiff's vendor filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery
of possession against petitioner and sold the said property to
plaintiff on 06.07.2023 and thereafter, withdrew the suit on
18.07.2023 as not pressed, proposed defendant is necessary
and proper party to decide the issue. The Court below failed to
appreciate the documentary evidence and erroneously
dismissed the Applications. He submits that the law laid down
by this Court in Vasavi Kanyaka Seva Trust v. District Collector,
R.R. District (2000 (2) L.S. 78) and B. Vijay Kumar v. Sreedhaar
Pulipati (2021 (3) ALD 502 (TS) was not taken into
consideration. According to the learned counsel, plaintiff
suppressed the material facts. The Court below ought to have
seen that plaintiff is not in possession on the date of execution
of sale deed i.e. on 06.07.2023 and to investigate the same,
petitioner herein is a necessary party, contends the learned
counsel.
5. Plaintiff filed a detailed counter contending that as
petitioner got defective title, his appeal in C/281/2025 before
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Janagaon to mutate his name in
revenue records was rejected on 27.07.2019, as such his vendor
had withdrawn all suits as not pressed on the advice that a
person whose predecessor had no title cannot get any better
title against his vendor, who purchased plaint schedule property
from M/s Mubarak Educational Society; as vendor of petitioner
purchased property without any resolution issued by the said
Society, revenue authorities refused to recognize the sale. It is
stated that his vendor delivered possession of plaint schedule
property at the time of sale and his name was mutated in the
revenue records. It is his grievance that when he was about to
fence the suit land, defendants tried to interfere with the same,
hence he filed suit for permanent injunction and there is no
question of grabbing suit property from petitioner as he had no
property in the suit survey numbers as on the date of filing the
suit. Admittedly, petitioner pleaded that he sold all the suit land
as pleaded in earlier proceedings, those illegal sales made by
petitioner are not binding on him as agricultural land was not
converted by petitioner as house sites by way of nala
proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon. Petitioner
did not apply for change of land use from agriculture to non-
agriculture. It is stated that till today, petitioner did not file any
civil suit or writ to regularise purchase of his vendor from
M/s Mubarak Educational Society without proper resolution
and authorisation as contemplated under Societies Act. Law
laid down by this Court in the judgment, cited supra is not
applicable to a person, who is not in possession of plaint
schedule property. Petitioner did not file any civil suit
questioning his possession or possession of his vendor.
Therefore, it is prayed that these Revisions may be dismissed.
6. Heard Sri Y. Hemachander, learned counsel for
petitioner, who reiterating the averments in the counter, argues
that plaintiff cannot be forced to add parties against whom he
does ot want to fight. Plaintiff being dominus litis may choose
persons against whom he wants to litigate and cannot be
compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any
relief. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts.
7. Before dealing with the issue, it is apposite to refer
to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
other High Courts in respect of Order I Rule 10 CPC. In
Gurmeet Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kanth Robinson (Civil Appeal
No.5522-5523 of 2019 dated 17.07.2019), the Hon'ble Apex
court held as under:
" At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original
plaintiffs filed the suit against the original owner - vendor - original
defendant no.1 for specific performance of the agreement to sell with
respect to suit property dated 3.5.2005. It is an admitted position that
so far as agreement to sell dated 3.5.2005 of which the specific
performance is sought, the appellant is not a party to the said
agreement to sell. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid
suit and though there was an injunction against the original owner -
vendor restraining him from transferring and alienating the suit
property, the vendor executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant by
sale deed dated 10.07.2008. After a period of approximately four years,
the appellant filed an application before the learned trial Court
under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for his impleadment as a defendant.
The appellant claimed the right on the basis of the said sale deed as well
as the agreement to sell dated 31.3.2003 alleged to have been executed
by the original vendor. The said application was opposed by the original
plaintiffs. The learned trial Court despite the opposition by the original
plaintiffs allowed the said application which has been set aside by the
High Court by the impugned judgment and order. Thus, it was an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC by a third party to the
agreement to sell between the original plaintiffs and original defendant
no.1 (vendor) and the said application for impleadment is/was opposed
by the original plaintiffs. Therefore, the short question which is posed
for consideration before this Court is, whether the plaintiffs can be
compelled to implead a person in the suit for specific performance,
against his wish and more particularly with respect to a person against
whom no relief has been claimed by him? 5.2 An identical question
came to be considered before this Court in the case of Kasturi (supra)
and applying the principle that the plaintiff is the dominus litis, in the
similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observed and
held that the question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke Order 1 Rule
10 CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by the
plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct
and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. It is further
observed and held by this Court that two tests are to be satisfied for
determining the question who is a necessary party. The tests are - (1)
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. It is further observed and held that
in a suit for specific performance the first test can be formulated is, to
determine whether a party is a necessary party there must be a right to
the same relief against the party claiming to be a necessary party,
relating to the same subject matter involved in the proceedings for
specific performance of contract to sell. It is further observed and held
by this Court that in a suit for specific performance of the contract, a
proper party is a party whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the
controversy involved in the suit. It is further observed and held that the
parties claiming an independent title and possession adverse to the title
of the vendor and not on the basis of the contract, are not proper parties
and if such party is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for
specific performance shall be enlarged to a suit for title and possession,
which is impermissible. It is further observed and held that a third party
or a stranger cannot be added in a suit for specific performance, merely
in order to find out who is in possession of the contracted property or to
avoid multiplicity of the suits. It is further observed and held by this
Court that a third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added so
as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character. In
paragraphs 15 and 16, this Court observed and held as under:
"15. As discussed hereinearlier, whether Respondents 1 and 4 to
11 were proper parties or not, the governing principle for deciding the
question would be that the presence of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11
before the court would be necessary to enable it effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in
the suit. As noted hereinearlier, in a suit for specific performance of a
contract for sale, the issue to be decided is the enforceability of the
contract entered into between the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3
and whether contract was executed by the appellant and Respondents 2
and 3 for sale of the contracted property, whether the plaintiffs were
ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and whether the
appellant is entitled to a decree for specific performance of a contract for
sale against Respondents 2 and 3. It is an admitted position that
Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 did not seek their addition in the suit on the
strength of the contract in respect of which the suit for specific
performance of the contract for sale has been filed.
8. In Taddi Chinnaiah. V. Tekumalla Purushottam Rao
(CRP No. 1065 of 2013 dated 30.4.2015) while dealing with
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, the composite High Court held as
under:
" 14. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is an exception to the general rule
that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons
against whom he wishes to litigate and he cannot be compelled to sue a
person against whom he does not seek any relief. Suffice it to say, the
discretionary power conferred on a civil court by Order I Rule
10(2) CPC has to be exercised judiciously basing on sound principles of
law.
24. The petitioners have very cleverly taken a plea in their
petition that rumours were spread in the village in the year 2004 that the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in collusion with respondent Nos.5 to 8 executed
sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8. It is the duty of the
petitioners to verify truthfulness or otherwise of the rumours aired in the
village. Taking of such a plea by the petitioners creates a doubt that the
petitioners were very much aware of the sale deeds executed by the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8. For the
reasons best known, the petitioners kept quiet up to 2010 i.e., till filing of
this petition. At another stage, the petitioners have taken a plea that they
came to know through B.Surya Rao, Advocate that the first respondent
filed O.S.No.29 of 2007 against the other respondents. The possibility of
taking this type of pleas by the petitioners in order to cover up their
laches cannot be ruled out completely. If really the petitioners have any
right or interest in the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.29 of 2007,
they might have taken appropriate steps much prior to 2010. One of the
tests to be applied, while considering the petition under Order I Rule 10
CPC, is whether the court is not in a position to adjudicate the subject
matter of the suit completely and effectually in the absence of the
proposed parties. In the case on hand, even in the absence of the
petitioners, the trial court can adjudicate the issues involved in the suit
effectively. As observed above, if the petitioners are allowed to come on
record, the cause of action alleged to have accrued in favour of the
petitioners falls outside the scope of the suit. The presence of the
petitioners should be an impediment for adjudication of the suit
completely and effectually.
25. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not necessary or proper
parties to O.S.No.29 of 2007. The possibility of filing present petition to
support either of the parties to the suit cannot be rued out completely.
The courts should not allow anybody to misuse the interlocutory
proceedings in order to protract the main cases as long as possible.
9 This Court in Palepu Bharat Babu Vs. Palleboina
Shankar (CRP No.246 of 2021 dated 1.11.2022), held as under:
" 10. Admittedly, the suit is filed on the basis of possession
and title over a particular plot. According to the petitioners claimed in
the main suit, the property covered by 10 different plots which are
subsequently identified as Plot Nos.1 to 5 and Plot Nos.A to E, which is
subject matter of a suit vide 24 of 1963 was divided between his grand
fatherVeerabadraiah and one Mangapathi Rao. The petitioner/plaintiff
has claimed that by virtue of the final decree in the above referred suit,
his grand father has got Plot Nos.1 to 5 and Mangapathi Rao was
allotted Plots identified as Plot No.A to Plot No.E. It is his further case in
the suit that when he was present and clearing his own plot that he got
by virtue of a will deed executed by his grand father, there was an
attempt to interfere into his property covered by Plot No.3. The petitioner
has claimed that the defendant No.3 claiming title over an extent of
property by virtue of sale deed said to have been executed by son of
above referred Mangapathi Rao. The petitioner/plaintiff sought for an
injunction against the defendant No.3 apart from declaration of his title.
While the said suit was pending before the trial Court, the petitioner
filed the petition under Order I Rule 10 r/w Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to
add one more defendant to the suit. The basis C.R.P. No.246 of 2021 for
such request is his knowledge with regard to one more document vide
document No.1628 of 2002. According to his own affidavit, he came to
know about this document when he visited the suit schedule property
with well-wishers and some other persons of the same locality and he
came to know about the existence of the above said document which
was also executed on the same day on which the document in favour of
the defendant No.3 was executed. The petitioner in his affidavit
categorically stated that the property shown/covered by document
No.1628 of 2002 in favour of the proposed party is different from the
property which he got from his grand father. Except saying that the
properties covered by the above referred two documents are over lapping
and there was some mistake with regard to the boundaries etc. The
petitioner did not explain as to how the 7th respondent is necessary
party to the suit. It is not the case of petitioner that the proposed
petitioner made an attempt to interfere with his possession nor it is his
case that the proposed defendant denied the title of the petitioner over
Plot Nos.1, 3 and 4 which is shown as suit schedule property. No where
in the petition, the petitioner has submitted as to how the proposed
party is a proper and necessary party for effective and complete
adjudication of his right in the suit. According to Order I Rule 10 C.P.C.,
the Court, on its own or on the request of any party to the suit can
implead any person to a pending suit when it came to the conclusion
that the proposed party is a proper and necessary party for effective and
complete adjudication of the suit. The petitioner did not state any
reason as to why he wanted the other person i.e., respondent No.7 to be
impleaded as defendant No.7 to the main suit.
11. As already stated the suit was filed by the petitioner for injunction,
declaration of his title on three different extents in Plot Nos.1, 3 and 4. It
is not the case of petitioner that the proposed party made any attempt to
interfere with his possession. He has simply claimed that on 13-04-
2017, when he visited the suit schedule property, he came to know
about the existence of another document which was also executed on
the same day on which defendant No.3 obtained a document in his
favour, thereby, he wanted an unconcerned person be impleaded as a
party to the pending suit. Therefore, the trial Court having considered
the pleadings, arguments came to a correct conclusion and dismissed
the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, there are no grounds to
interfere with the order of the trial Court while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. The revision is liable to be
dismissed.
10. The High Court of Uttarakhand in Sanjay Kumar
Nagalia Vs. S.M. Milkose Ltd. (W.P. (M/S) No. 2976 of 2018
Dated 5.5.2022) held as under:
" 15. This Court is further of the view, that there is another
reason for not to accept the contention which has been raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent in the Impleadment Application,
whereby, they have claimed that their right to be impleaded was
foundationed by virtue of an agreement for sale, it is for the reason, that
as per Article 54 to the Schedule, provided under the Limitation Act, it
had provided that the Suit for specific performance as contained under
entry 54, the period of limitation would be either "the date fixed for the
performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed
that performance is refused".
16. The case of the petitioner is that as per the contents of
the alleged agreement for sale, since the date for execution of the sale
deed was settled to be executed by 28th February, 2012, and since the
period of limitation prescribed under the Schedule, to the Limitation Act,
as contained under Article 54, i.e. three years from the date of the
execution of the deed or from the date of the knowledge of the execution
of the deed, since the Suit for specific performance was not got
instituted, no right stood ever created in favour of the respondents,
which could have necessitated further for the respondent to be
impleaded as party to the Suit.
17. In fact, this Court is am of the view, that if such type of
impleadment in a Suit for declaration of sale deed dated 7th December,
2021, if a third party is permitted to be impleaded, who is not at all
affected by any consequential degree, which may or is likely to be passed
by the learned Trial Court, they would not be the necessary party
because their presence in the Suit is not at all required in view of the
provisions contained under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC.
18. Apart from it, the Court is of the view that it is an
admitted position, which has emerged from the facts of the case, that
since the agreement for sale, was only allegedly said to have been
executed in favour of the applicant, the agreement for sale as per the
settled law will, in itself will not grant any right, as such to the applicant
to be impleaded in a Suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of the
sale deed to be void and thus, allowing of the application for
impleadment by the learned Court below suffers from the apparent
vices, because any decisions to be rendered in the said Suit will not at
all in any manner prejudice the rights of the applicant at all.
19. The aforesaid reason stands fortified in view of the
judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as reported in (2005) 6
SCC 733, Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others, wherein, the Hon'ble
Apex Court, while answering the question about the impact of Order 1
Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, as to who would be the necessary party who
would be required to be impleaded in a Suit, the necessary test, which
has been provided therein, that there must be a right in favour of an
applicant, to some relief against such party in respect of the controversy
involved in the Suit or where no effective decree could have been passed
in the absence of the party seeking themselves to be impleaded.
11. The conspectus of the above judgments would
clearly divulge the fact that Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC postulates
that plaintiff being dominus litis may choose person(s) against
whom he wants to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a
person against whom he does not seek any relief. Though
revision petitioner claims right and title over the suit schedule
property, it is an admitted fact that suit schedule property was
never converted into non-agriculture purpose by following the
procedure as prescribed and admittedly, the revenue records
also do not support the claim of petitioner, since plaintiff
subsequent to purchase of the suit schedule property from his
vendor through a registered sale deed dated 06.07.2023 got
mutated his name in revenue records and thereafter, obtained
pattadar passbooks and also the same was entered in Dharani
Portal maintained by the Revenue Department (Land Records) of
the Government of Telangana. It is also an admitted fact that
petitioner is claiming to have purchased the land which was
subsequently made into house plots through a registered sale
deed dated 29.10.2015 and that he had sold away some plots to
various purchasers and the remaining are in his possession.
This Court is unable to countenance the submissions of revision
petitioner for the reason that when he himself is not candid in
giving the details of the exact extent of lands which he is holding
and without disclosing the same, revision petitioner, even if
impleaded in the suit, it cannot serve any purpose more
particularly in asserting his rights over the suit schedule
property.
12. In a suit filed for bare perpetual injunction, what is
to be seen is 'lawful possession over the property of the person
who is claiming relief as on the date of filing of suit' and further
'as on the date of filing of suit, whether there was any
interference of his possession'. In the instant case, plaintiff had
categorically asserted about the interference of defendants 1
and 2 as to their interference with respect to suit schedule
property and as such chosen to make them party defendant. As
rightly observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other High
Courts, stated supra, plaintiff being dominus litis may chose
persons against whom he wants to litigate and cannot be
compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any
relief. It is pertinent to note here that petitioner purchased
some house plots way back in 2015 and he is also aware of the
fact that Application for mutation was rejected by the revenue
authorities and that he never chose to challenge the rejection
proceedings till date and has conveniently preferred the present
Applications without even exactly knowing where his property is
situated. Though it was the specific contention of plaintiff that
the very sale by Mubarak Educational Society in favour of
vendor of petitioner is sham for the reason that the Society does
not have any resolution granting permission for the said sale,
this Court does not want to go into the said issue as the suit is
only for permanent injunction. Further, viewed from any angle,
more particularly with the aforesaid observations this Court
opines that petitioner cannot be treated as a necessary party
since plaintiff is only seeking permanent injunction against
Defendants 1 and 2, who are interfering with peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on
the date of filing of the suit. It is the plaintiff's prerogative to
choose to make parties in the suit who are actually interfering
with the possession of the suit schedule property.
13. The judgment relied on by petitioner supra cannot
be made applicable for the reason that petitioner is vague in his
Applications with respect to possession. Therefore, viewed from
any angle, the trial Court has rightly considered all the above
points and dismissed the Applications. This Court does not find
any ground much less a valid ground, requiring interference in
the orders under Revision.
14. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
15. Consequently, the miscellaneous Petitions, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
06th September 2024
ksld
