Telangana High Court
Govt. Of A.P., vs G. Veeresh on 3 September, 2025
Author: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Rev.A.S.M.P.Nos.258 of 2014 in A.S.No.1893 of
2002, 242 of 2014 in A.S.No.1894 of 2002, 243 of
2014 in A.S.No.1896 of 2002, 246 of 2014 in
A.S.No.1897 of 2002, 245 of 2014 in A.S.No.1898 of
2002, 240 of 2014 in A.S.No.144 of 2003, 238 of 2014
in A.S.No.145 of 2003, 241 of 2014 in A.S.No.178 of
2003, 244 of 2014 in A.S.No.179 of 2003, 239 of 2014
in A.S.No.598 of 2003 and 281 of 2014 in A.S.No.597
of 2003.
COMMON ORDER:
These applications are filed seeking review the common
order dt.20-03-2013 in A.S.M.P.Nos.485 to 495 of 2012 in
A.S.No.1893 of 2002 and batch.
2. The petitioner herein had filed the applications to implead it
in the appeals invoking under Order I Rule 10 CPC contending that
it had entered into an agreement of sale dt.17-11-2004 with the
respective 3rd respondents in these applications.
3. The 3rd respondent in these applications had filed suits
against respondents 1 and 2 for declaration of their title and for
permanent injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from
interfering with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the said property. By common judgment dt.26-04-2002, these
suits were decreed.
4. Challenging the same, respondents 1 and 2 have filed
these appeals in this Court.
5. When the petitioner herein, claiming to have entered into
agreement of sale with 3rd respondents on 17-11-2004, sought to
get itself impleaded in these appeals, this Court on 20-03-2013
rejected it by a common order. This Court held that the agreement
of sale as well as compromise dt.09-09-2009 between the
petitioners and the respective 3rd respondents before the Legal
Services Authority were done behind the back of the respondents
1 and 2; the agreement of sale was executed after filing of the
suits; and that the rights of the petitioner cannot be decided in the
appeals. It held that if the respective 3rd respondents succeed in
the appeals, it would enure to the benefit of the petitioner and any
dispute between the petitioner and the respective 3rd respondents
cannot be decided in these appeals and has to be decided by
other process of law.
6. Seeking a review of these judgments, these appeals are
filed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
above order is erroneous and is vitiated by error of law apparent on
the face of the record. He contended that the Court has ample
power to allow the applications for impleadment under Order I Rule
10 CPC since the petitioner would be effected party and its interest
is involved in those appeals. It is also stated that the petitioner had
been allowed to be impleaded in two other appeals without any
objection and therefore it should have been allowed to be
impleaded in these appeals also.
8. The learned counsel for 3rd respondents, Sri R.Vinod
Reddy, opposed the review applications and contended that the
petitioner is not necessary and proper party to the appeals since
they are only claiming under agreement of sale which does not
create any interest in the property which is subject matter of the
appeals.
9. I have noted the submissions of both sides.
10. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act states that
an agreement of sale does not of itself create any interest or
charge on the property which is a subject matter of the agreement.
I n Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NRC Limited , the Supreme
Court held "On a plain reading of Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, it is clear that an agreement of sale or an
agreement to sell of itself does not create any interest or charge in
such property." Thus there is no dissolution of interest in favour of
petitioner from the respective 3rd respondents.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is
an agreement of sale-cum-GPA and therefore, it cannot be said
that the petitioner has no interest in the property. In Suraj Lamp &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Another , the
Supreme Court held that a power of attorney is not an instrument of
transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable
property and that it merely creates an agency whereby the grantor
authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of
the grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as
if done by him. It held that even in an irrevocable attorney does not
have the effect of title to the grantee.
12. Since the claim of the petitioner is based only on the
agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. allegedly executed by the
respective 3rd respondents, in view of the above legal position, it
has to be taken that they have no interest in the property which is
subject matter of the appeals. Therefore, they are not entitled to be
impleaded as parties under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.
13. The question in the appeal is whether the decision of
the trial Court declaring the title of the respective 3rd respondents
vis-à-vis respondents 1 and 2 and granting an injunction in their
favour is correct or not. So I am of the opinion that the appeal can
be decided without the presence of the petitioner. The presence of
the petitioner is not necessary to enable the Court effectively and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in
the appeal. So the petitioner cannot invoke Order I Rule 10 (2)
CPC also.
14. Admittedly the agreement of sale was executed by
respective 3rd respondents in favour of petitioner behind back of
respondent Nos.1 and 2/appellants herein. Even the petitioner is
supporting claim of a 3rd respondent/plaintiff. So if 3rd respondent
succeeds in the appeal, it will enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
So I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in this
order warranting its review.
15. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner in
these applications submits that the respective 3rd respondents
have executed other agreements of sale and are likely to also
continue to do so creating more complications, that is no
justification for impleading the petitioners in these appeals.
16. Merely because in two other connected appeals,
applications for impleadment were allowed, that cannot operate as
a precedent because such impleadment appears to be prima facie
contrary to law. Therefore, I am not inclined to follow the said order
and direct impleadment of the petitioner in these appeals.
17. It is open for the petitioner to take such steps as it is
advised in accordance with law to enforce the rights, if any under
the agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. obtained by it on 17-11-2004.
18. With these observations, these applications are
dismissed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date : 21-02-2014
Kvr/*
(2012) 4 S.C.C. 148
2012 (1) ALD 92 (SC)
