Telangana High Court

B Sridhar vs A Malliah on 2 April, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

    THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.781 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent

No.1-plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2019 in I.A. No.114 of

2018 in O.S No.29 of 2018 passed by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner was the

plaintiff in O.S No.29 of 2018. O.S. No.29 of 2018 was filed seeking the

relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property

bearing H.No.20-2-742/7, admeasuring 120 sq. yds., consisting of ground +

two floors situated at Dood Bowli, Hyderabad, against respondent Nos.2 to

4, who were none other than the brother and sisters of the plaintiff. The

specific case of the revision petitioner-plaintiff was that his deceased father

late B.Surya Prakash purchased the suit schedule property from one

Narasamma about 35 years ago and he passed away intestate on

14.06.2016. The revision petitioner was residing in a portion of the suit

schedule property on the first floor, and part of the ground floor and second

floor were vacant and under the lock and key of the revision petitioner.

Dr.GRR, J

The other part of the ground floor was in possession of one Mr. Bheem,

who was a tenant and he was paying rents to respondent No.2 herein. The

defendants in the suit started creating disturbance in the family of the

plaintiff as such, he was constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction

restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of

the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

3. While the matter was posted for framing of issues, the respondent

No.1 filed an application vide I.A. No.114 of 2018 seeking to implead

himself as defendant No.4 in the main suit. The respondent No.1

contended that he was the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule

property by virtue of two unregistered sale deeds dated 08.03.1990 and

09.03.1990 executed by one Smt. Ganji Rajamani and Smt. Udatta

Narsamma, respectively, and the same were allegedly got validated vide

File No.1813/AR/2002 and 1816/AR/2002 both dated 28.01.2002. The

respondent No.1 further contended that the plaintiff in the suit was his

tenant in respect of part of the suit schedule property on the first floor

under an oral tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- per month. The

plaintiff was not paying any rents for the past five months, as such, he was

constrained to issue quit notice on 14.03.2018 under Section 106 of the

Transfer of Property Act seeking eviction and recovery of possession and

Dr.GRR, J

rents due. While so, he came to know that the parties to the suit colluded

with each other and filed the present suit as such, it became necessary for

him to be impleaded as party in view of his rights being affected in respect

of the property.

4. The revision petitioner herein-plaintiff filed counter in the said

application contending that the respondent No.1-petitioner had no locus

standi to implead in the suit and denied that he was the owner of the suit

property by virtue of two separate sale deeds and contended that the said

documents were created and forged, one document was in Urdu and its

translation was not even filed and denied that he was a tenant of the suit

schedule property. He further contended that there was no jural relationship

between him and the third party petitioner as such, the question of payment

of rents would not arise. He denied that he filed a false suit for perpetual

injunction in collusion with his elder brother and elder sisters and involved

the petitioner's property in a frivolous litigation. He contended that on the

same day of issuing legal notice on 14.03.2018 itself, the third party

petitioner filed the above petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The trial court, on considering the contentions of both the learned

counsel appearing before it as well as considering the citations relied by

them, allowed the petition permitting the third party petitioner therein to

Dr.GRR, J

get impleaded himself as respondent No.4 in I.A. No.1 of 2018 and

defendant No.4 in the suit, respectively.

6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned VIII Junior

Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the respondent No.1 therein-

plaintiff, preferred this revision.

7. Heard Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Laxmikanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-proposed

party.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit was the dominus litis and it was

his sole prerogative to file the suit against the individuals who were

interfering with his possession. The court would only incidentally go into

the title of the plaintiff while deciding a suit for injunction and it was the

possession which matters in deciding the suit for perpetual injunction. The

trial court erred in holding that the presence of the proposed party was

essential and relied upon two sale deeds allegedly executed in his favour

considering them as registered documents. But, as per the petition filed by

the respondent No.1 himself, those were unregistered documents which

were validated by him by paying necessary stamp duty. On an application

filed by the revision petitioner with the District Registrar, the revision

Dr.GRR, J

petitioner came to realize that the said file numbers did not correspond to

any validation file, but were in fact correspondence files raising a cloud

over the authenticity of the said documents. Any ownership rights in

respect of an immovable property would not stand transferred through

unregistered sale deeds. It was evident that the sale deeds had been created

and fabricated by the proposed party only with an intention to protract the

proceedings and to deprive him of his rights. Even otherwise, the sale

deeds were related to properties at Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad whereas the

validation was claimed to have been done in the office of the District

Registrar and Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which would also prove that

the sale deeds were fabricated. Presuming without admitting that the

proposed party was in fact the owner of the suit schedule property also, the

plaintiff had every right to be in possession of the property till he was

evicted by due process of law and he was entitled to file a suit for perpetual

injunction against only those individuals who were interfering with his

possession. Presuming without admitting that the proposed party was in

fact landlord and had issued a quit notice, the proper remedy available to

him would be to initiate an independent suit for eviction, but could not

insist upon to implead himself in the present proceedings as his presence

would not assist the court in deciding the lis involved. The proposed party

could succeed in an implead petition only if he was a proper and necessary

Dr.GRR, J

party to the lis and without his presence the court could not effectively

decide and determine the matters in controversy in the suit. But, such was

not the situation of the present case, as the issues involved could very well

be adjudicated upon in the absence of the proposed party and prayed to set

aside the impugned order.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand

contended that the plaintiff and defendants colluded with each other and

filed a false suit to defeat his rights. The proposed party also filed a suit for

eviction against the revision petitioner herein, but the same was dismissed

for default. The respondent No.1 had also filed the link documents along

with the sale deeds filed by him of his vendor. But, no link documents

were filed by the revision petitioner herein. The trial court on considering

all the aspects and citations, passed the impugned order, and prayed to

dismiss the revision petition.

10. As seen from the record, the suit was filed by the plaintiff

seeking the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3,

who were none other than his elder brother and sisters. His contention was

that his father B. Surya Prakash was the owner of the suit schedule property

and he purchased the same from one Narsamma 35 years ago and his father

died intestate on 14.06.2016 leaving behind him his wife, the plaintiff and

Dr.GRR, J

the defendants as his legal heirs. After demise of their father, the plaintiff

was residing in the first floor and part of the ground floor and second floor

was vacant and the same was locked and was in possession of the plaintiff.

He contended that the defendants were interfering with his possession over

the suit schedule property and he lodged a police complaint in Hussani

Alam Police Station on 20.12.2007. The police called the defendant No.1

to the police station, but he evaded to come to the police station and as

such, he filed the suit.

11. The respondent No.1 herein-proposed party contended that he

was the owner of the suit schedule property and purchased the same by

virtue of two separate sale deeds dated 08.03.1990 and 09.03.1990

executed by its lawful owners Smt. Ganji Rajamani and Smt. Udatta

Narasamma and the plaintiff was his tenant and he was residing in the first

floor of the house bearing Municipal No.20-2-742/7, Dood Bowli,

Hyderabad and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- on oral tenancy.

The plaintiff was irregular in paying the monthly rents for the past five

months, as such, he issued a quit notice on 14.03.2018 under Section 106 of

the TP Act and a false suit was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with

defendant Nos.1 to 3. Thus, the respondent No.1-proposed party was

Dr.GRR, J

admitting possession of the plaintiff but, claiming ownership over the suit

schedule property.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport

Pvt. Ltd.v. Regency Convention Centra & Hotels & Ors. 1 held the

general principals with regard to Order-I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil

Procedure as:

"The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub- rule is extracted below:

(2) "Court may strike out or add parties.

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. A

AIR 2010 SC 3109

Dr.GRR, J

`necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a `necessary party' is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A `proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance."

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered its earlier judgment of a Two

Judge Bench in Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. 2, wherein it was held that

a person need not have any subsisting right or interest in the suit property

for being impleaded as a defendant, and that even a person is likely to

acquire an interest therein in future in appropriate cases, is entitled to be

impleaded as a party.

14. In the above case, it was held that:

"Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperuma [2005(6) SCC 733]. He has submitted that in this case it has been held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a busybody or interloper with no semblance of title cannot be impleaded in such a suit. That would unnecessarily protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. However, the aforesaid decision will have no application where a third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute.........It cannot be laid down as an

2007 (10) SCC 82

Dr.GRR, J

absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. If C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment."

15. In the present case, the proposed party was a third party

claiming a right over the disputed property. He was not a necessary party

as his presence was not essential for the court to decide the lis involved in

it. But, however, as the respondent No.1-the proposed party was having

interest in the litigation, he is a proper party and his presence would help in

adjudicating the matter comprehensively as his rights would be affected by

the outcome of the suit.

16. Under Order-I, Rule 10 of CPC, the court has discretion to

implead any person as a party if his presence is necessary for effectively

adjudicating the matter. Even if no relief is sought against the third party,

he might be added if his rights are linked to the subject matter of the suit.

17. As the respondent No.1-proposed party was claiming ownership