Partly allowed

Deveneni Venkatesulu v. Rajen Joshua

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2019CRP/217/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner, a subsequent purchaser of suit schedule properties, sought impleadment as plaintiffs. The court granted impleadment but as defendants, directing an option to transpose status to plaintiffs only if the original plaintiffs fail to contest properly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be impleaded as defendants 7 and 8; petitioners to file appropriate application to transpose them as plaintiffs if plaintiffs do not contest properly; no order as to costs.

Deveneni Venkatesulu Vs Rajen Joshua — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.217 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by proposed plaintiffs 9 and 10, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order, dated 16.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.501 of 2017 in O.S. No.12 of 2009, by virtue of which, the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, dismissed the petition filed by them under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead them as Plaintiffs 9 and 10 in the suit.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the suit is filed for declaration and during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners purchased the suit schedule properties from Plaintiffs 5 to 8, without the knowledge of the pendency of the suit. It is the case of the petitioners that if they are not impleaded in the suit, their interest would be defeated. The lower court dismissed the petition stating that the petitioners have approached the court at a belated stage and that they are not proper parties. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are necessary parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioners relies on a Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in K.Srinivasulu Vs Jaldu Subramanyam Chettu¹ , wherein, by relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶8

1 2014(1)ALT 383

¶9

¶10

Kedarnath Lal (died) by his legal representatives Vs

¶11

Sheonarain² , it was held that ‘subsequent purchasers are necessary parties to the suit for declaration, as they have acquired interest in the entire property, which is the subject matter of the suit’. It also observed that ‘there is a possibility of the 1^st respondent therein not properly defending the appeal and are colluded with the appellant’.

¶12

Another Judgment relied by the counsel for petitioners in Lebaka Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs Ambavaram Narayanamma³ , which is also to the same effect.

¶13

The Judgment in Civil Revision Petition No.5656 of 2015 is also relied upon by the counsel for petitioners, which supports the said principle. However, the prayer of the petitioners herein to implead themselves as plaintiffs 9 and 10, shall not be permitted on the assumption that the Plaintiffs would not be prosecuting the suit properly. The petitioners shall be impleaded as defendants 7 and 8. In case, if the plaintiffs do not contest the suit properly, then the petitioners herein would have an option to file appropriate application to transpose them as plaintiffs 9 and 10.

¶14

With the above direction, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Civil Revision petition shall stand closed.

¶16

October 18, 2019 MP

¶17

2 air 1970 sc 1717

¶18

3 2013(6)ALT 516

¶19

_____________ T. RAJANI, J

Deveneni Venkatesulu v. Rajen Joshua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deveneni Venkatesulu v. Rajen Joshua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Pedapudi Vanaja Vs the State of Ap

B.Ramnarayana Reddy, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation

P.Koteswarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Kanaka Durga Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Rajagopal and Another Vs R Joshua and 8 Others

Muttineni Rajagopal, Vs Social Education and Development Society