Telangana High Court
Iska Akshara vs S. Ravi Chandra Reddy And Another on 12 February, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2963 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - proposed
defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned
IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dismissing the petition
filed by her under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of
Civil Rules of Practice, seeking her impleadment.
2. The respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 is the
defendant in O.S.No.696 of 2021. The proposed defendant No.2 is the daughter
of the defendant.
3. As seen from the facts of the case, the respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed the
suit against respondent No.2 - defendant for eviction from the suit schedule
property, for arrears of rent and mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit,
the revision petitioner - proposed defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.171 of 2022 to
implead her as defendant No.2 on the ground that the sale deed dated
08.06.2017 registered as document No.3349 of 2017 in favor of the respondent
No.1 - plaintiff by the respondent No.2 - defendant, his wife and his mother,
was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff, instead of a mortgage deed, for a debt,
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2963_2022
borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff. The revision petitioner contended
that she was the joint owner of the plaint schedule property and that she had a
direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit and that she was a
proper and necessary party and for the just disposal of the matter in controversy,
sought to implead her as proposed defendant No.2.
4. The trial court on considering the contentions of the counsel for the
proposed party i.e. the revision petitioner herein and that of the counsel for the
respondent No.1 - plaintiff and as the respondent No.2 - defendant failed to file
his counter nor submitted his arguments observed that he was sailing with the
proposed party - his daughter and got filed the petition only to dodge the
proceedings in the suit, dismissed the petition.
5. Challenging the said dismissal, the proposed defendant No.2 preferred
this revision.
6. Heard Sri Ch. Satya Sadhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Dinesh Gilda, learned counsel representing Sri Damodar Mundra, learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff on record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had got
joint rights in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was
purchased by respondent No.2-defendant from the sale consideration amount
received on sale of a joint family property. Without having any right, the
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2963_2022
respondent No.2-defendant executed the document in favour of respondent
No.1-plaintff behind her back infringing her rights. The petitioner was a
necessary party. The trial court dismissed the impleadment petition basing on
presumptions and surmises without affording an opportunity to the revision
petitioner to participate in the trial though her impleadment, and prayed to give
an opportunity to the petitioner to implead herself and to submit her case.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff submitted that the
respondent No.1 - plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from
respondent No.2 vide registered sale deed in the year 2017. The respondent
No.2 sold the property along with his mother and wife jointly in favor of the
respondent No.1 - plaintiff. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 entered into
three (03) lease agreements with the respondent No.1 - plaintiff. The
respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed the suit for eviction for his bonafide
requirement and requested respondent No.2 to vacate the premises and to
handover the vacant possession, as he also defaulted payment of rents since
June, 2021. The contention of the proposed party was that the suit schedule
property was acquired through the joint family nucleus obtained from the sale
consideration of the joint family property belonging to her grandfather and she
being a coparcener of late Iska Vasanth Kumar (her grandfather) was entitled
for a share in the suit property and the sale deed was executed by respondent
No.2 in favor of respondent No.1 - plaintiff infringing her rights, but she failed
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2963_2022
to file any suit for partition or separate possession nor prayed to declare the
registered sale deed and rental deeds as null and void.
8.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff further submitted that
the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on considering
all the aspects, that the suit for eviction was filed basing on landlord - tenant
jural relationship, but not on title and considering the various judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court and the provisions under Section 116 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the definition of "tenant" under Section 105
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, held that the revision petitioner -
proposed defendant No.2 was not a necessary party. No interference of this
Court was required in the matter and prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.
9. Perused the record and the impugned order.
10. The suit was filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff for eviction, arrears
of rent and mesne profits basing upon the jural relationship of landlord and
tenant vide registered lease deeds executed between him and the respondent
No.2 - defendant. It was not a suit for title to consider the contentions of the
revision petitioner / proposed party, whether the suit schedule property was
purchased from out of the nucleus of the joint family property or not and
whether she was entitled for a share in the suit property and whether her rights
were infringed due to the alleged sale between the respondents 1 and 2. As
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2963_2022
rightly observed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, the proposed party ought to have filed a proper suit, if she had an
interest in the suit schedule property, if any, but could not agitate the same in
the suit for eviction filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2. The trial
court on considering that the transactions between respondents 1 and 2 were
through registered sale deed and registered lease deeds and that there was a
presumption that registered documents were validly executed supporting the
landlord and tenant relationship between the respondents and the word "tenant"
includes the daughter of the lessee, who had been living with the tenant in the
building as a member of the tenant's family and considering the judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamaljit Singh v. Sarabjit Singh [2014 16 SCC
472] and a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Pasricha v.
Jagannath [(1976) 4 SCC 184] observed that the tenant in a suit for possession
was estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial court considered the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in M.Sanjeeva Reddy v. M.Vinodhamma in
C.C.C.A.No.89 of 2019 dated 10.06.2022, wherein the above judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court were extracted and held that what was important was that
so long as a jural relationship existed between the respondent - tenant and the
appellant and so long as he had not surrendered the possession of the premises
in his occupation, he could not question the title of the appellant to the property.
Dr.GRR, J
crp_2963_2022
11. This Court does not find any merits in the contentions raised by the
revision petitioner in the grounds of petition or any illegality in the order of the
trial court to set aside the same.
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order
dated 19.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.171 of 2022 in O.S.No.696 of 2021 by the
learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G. RADHARANI, J
Date: 12th February, 2025
Nsk.
