Telangana High Court

K Manasa vs R.Nageshwar Reddy on 20 March, 2025

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
        CRP.Nos.3400, 3443, 3448 & 3486 OF 2018


COMMON ORDER:

Since the lis involved in all the revision petitions are

same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by

way of this common order.

2. CRP.Nos.3400 and 3486 of 2018 are filed challenging

the common order dated 26.02.2018 passed in IA.No.149 of

2018 in IA.No.75 of 2018, and IA.No.148 of 2018, in

OS.No.170 of 2018 respectively ; CRP.Nos.3443 and 3448 of

2018 are filed challenging the common order dated

26.02.2018 passed in IA.No.147 of 2018, and IA.No.146 of

2018 in IA.No.73 of 2018, in OS.No.169 of 2018

respectively.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed

a suit against Respondent No.2, seeking perpetual

injunction to prevent interference with their peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property,

contending that she is the absolute owner and possessor of

SKS,J CRP.Nos.3400, 3443, 3448 & 3486 OF 2018

suit property, which was originally part of a larger

landholding owned by Mr.Ranga Reddy and 43 others.

These co-owners had executed a registered General Power of

Attorney (GPA) in favor of two pattedars, R.Ranga Reddy and

R. Keshava Reddy, to facilitate the sale of the land. The land

was subsequently converted into plots, and the petitioner

purchased Plot No. 51 through a registered sale deed dated

May 20, 1982, from the person who had earlier bought the

plot from the original owners. The petitioner took physical

possession of the plot and has since been in peaceful

possession of the property. However, it was alleged that

Respondent No. 1 has been attempting to grab the property

based on a sham sale deed, leading the petitioner filing suit

against him to safeguard the property, which is pending

before the Special Judge for SC/ST Cases cum Addtional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar. In turn,

the Respondent No. 1 also filed a writ petition vide

W.P.No.2628 challenging the inaction of Respondent No. 2

in not taking steps regarding alleged illegal constructions.

This Court directed Respondent No. 2 to visit the subject

property and take necessary steps. Subsequently,

SKS,J CRP.Nos.3400, 3443, 3448 & 3486 OF 2018

Respondent No. 1 filed petitions under Order I Rule 10(2) of

the Civil Procedure Code to implead himself as Defendant

No.2 in O.S.No.170 of 2018 and I.A. No.75 of 2018. The trial

Court allowed the applications vide common orders dated

26.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, these revision petitions are

filed challenging both the impugned common orders.

4. Heard Sri Raviteja Akella, learned counsel for

petitioner, and Sri A.Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for

respondents.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

impugned orders are contrary to the facts on record, and are

without any material or evidence. He contended that the

trial Court erred in considering established principles of law

and that Respondent No.1 is neither a necessary nor a

proper party, and that the trial Court ought not to have

impleaded him, more particularly, since the petitioner had

already filed a suit against Respondent No.1 seeking

declaration and perpetual injunction, which is pending. He

asserted that impleading Respondent No. 1 would enlarge

the scope of the suit, lead to conflicting judgments, and

SKS,J CRP.Nos.3400, 3443, 3448 & 3486 OF 2018

change the very nature of the suit, which is only filed for

perpetual injunction. He averred that that the

petitioner/plaintiff is the dominus litis and no person can be

impleaded against her will. Therefore, while placing reliance

on the judgments rendered in the cases of Kasturi Vs.

Iyyamperumal and Others 1 and Giani Ram Vs. Baba

Pritam Sewa Samiti and Others2, he prayed this Court to

allow these revision petitions, setting aside the impugned

common orders dated 26.02.2018.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents

vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned

counsel for revision petitioners, and submitted that though

the petitioner submits that lis is pending, he informed that

the suit was withdrawn by the revision petitioner against all

the defendants, except for one defendant and asserted that

in view of same, the revision petitioner has to agitate his

rights before the said Court where injunction is granted.

Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss the revision

petitions, stating that the same lacks merits.

2005 6 SCC 733

2019 SCC OnLine P&H 7197

SKS,J CRP.Nos.3400, 3443, 3448 & 3486 OF 2018

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is noted that

respondent No.1 filed implead petition in injunction suit

filed against the municipality stating that even he is having

title over the suit property, whereas, the said suit was filed

only to restrain the municipality from interfering into the

peaceful possession, that being so, even if any order is

granted, it can only be granted against the municipality and

not against him as there is no claim against him.

8. At this stage, it is imperative to note the paragraph

No.16 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Kasturi (supra) and the same reads as

under:

"16. That apart, from a plain reading of the

expression used in sub-rule (2) Order I Rule

10 of CPC 'all the questions involved in the

suit' it is abundantly clear that the

legislature clearly meant that the

controversies raised as between the parties

to the litigation must be gone into only, that

SKS,J CRP.Nos.3400, 3443, 3448 & 3486 OF 2018

is to say, controversies with regard to the

right which is set up and the relief claimed

on one side and denied on the other and not

the controversies which may arise between

the plaintiff-appellant and the defendants

inter se or questions between the parties to

the suit and a third party. In our view,

therefore, the Court cannot allow

adjudication of collateral matters so as to

convert a suit for specific performance of

contract for sale into a complicated suit for

title between the plaintiff-appellant on one

hand and Respondents 2 and 3 and

Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 on the other.

This addition, if allowed, would lead to a

complicated litigation by which the trial and

decision of serious questions which are

totally outside the scope of the suit would

have to be gone into. As the decree of a suit

for specific performance of the contract for

sale, if passed, cannot, a all, affect the right,

title and interest of Respondents 1 and 4 to

11 in respect of the contracted property and

SKS,J CRP.Nos.3400, 3443, 3448 & 3486 OF 2018

in view of the detailed discussion made

hereinearlier, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11

would not, at all, be necessary to be added

in the instant suit for specific performance

of all the contract for sale."