Dismissed

M S Rao, Krishna Dist v. P Yesuratnam, Krishna Dist and 101 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024CRP/3252/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court order allowing third parties to be impleaded in an injunction suit. The court held that the impleaded parties were necessary to determine possession and title effectively, upholding the trial court's discretion under CPC Order 1 Rule 10(2).

What did the court decide?

Orders, if any, passed by the trial court on the application for impleadment remain in force.

M S Rao, Krishna Dist Vs P Yesuratnam, Krishna… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

✓

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

I■

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3252 OF 2Q1fi

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to against the judgment dated 18-2-2016 passed in I.A.No.153 of 2014 in I.A.No.39 of 2010 in O.S No.429 of 2009, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Matta Subba Rao, S/o Anjaneyulu, aged about 58 years, R/o D.No.41 8-19/8, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶11

...Petitioner/1 respondent/Plaintiff , AND

¶12

Parasa Yesuratnam, S/o Adam, aged about 58 years, R/o D.No. 36-836, Sudarsana Rao Street, Nehru Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

Parasa Vijaya Rani, W/o Yesuratnam, aged about 54 years, R/o D.No. 36-8-36, Sudarsana Rao Street, Nehru Nagar, Vijayawada Krishna District.

¶14

...Respondents/Petitioners/Third Parties

¶15

Thella Mannoz Kuar, S/o Issac, aged about 43 years,

¶16

Kanaparti Kanakaiah, S/o Yesobu, aged about 42 years

¶17

Katuri Ramesh, S/o Munuswamy, aged about 29 years

¶18

6.	Gurajala Purushotham, S/o Ragaiah, aged about 39 years
7. V*	Kavuri Elia, S/o Levaiah, aged about 49 years,
8.	Kanaparti Koteswara Rao, S/o yesobu, aged about ⁶⁰ years,
9.	Thella Prabhakar, S/o Kotaiah, aged about 46 years,
10.	Kavuri Filip Raju, S/o Subba Rao, aged about 46 years
11.	Katuri Premaiah, S/o kotaiah, aged about 30 years,
12.	Kanaparti Danial, S/o Peda Ankaiah, aged about 56 years.
13.	Pathuri Anka Raju, S/o Gandhi, aged about 37 years,
14.	Kavuri Anka Raju, S/o Benjiman, aged about 39 years.
15.	Katuri Subba Rao, S/o Jakraiah, aged about 33 years
16.	Kavuri Suresh, S/o Benman, aged about 37 years,
17.	Thella Ragaiah, S/o Kotaiah, aged about 35 years
18.	Kavuri Mark , S/o Isreal, aged about 28 years
19.	Kavuri Koteswara Rao, S/o Israel, aged about 36 years
20.	Katuri Soma Raju, S/o Kotaiah, aged about 46 years
21.	Kanaparti Venkata Rao, S/o Danikel, aged about 32 years.
22.	Kavuri Yesobu, S/o Levia, aged about 47 years,
23.	Kavuri Kannaiah, S/o. Singaiah, aged about 30 years
24.	Pathuri Peda Ankaiah, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 46 years.
25.	Kavuri Nireekshana Babu, S/o Subba Rao, aged about ³⁷ yea
26.	Kuchipudi Elia S/o Premaiah, aged about 29 years, -
27.	Thella Sreenu S/o Babu Rao, aged about 37 years, -

¶19

28.	Kanaparti yesobu S/o Koteswara Rao, aged about 31 years, -
29.	Nallagatia Samadanam W/o Krupa Rao, aged about 49 years, -
30.	Thella Balaram S/o Babu Rao, aged about 30 years, -
31.	Katuri John S/o John, aged about 37 years, -
32.	Gurajala Ramesh S/o Visweswara Rao, aged about 36 years, -
33.	Katuri Kamalamma W/o John, aged about 50 years, -
34.	Thella Ranamma W/o Babu Rao, aged about 59 years, -
35.	Palepu Varalakshmi W/o Ratnam, aged about 30 years, -
36.	Ethamukkala Lingaiah S/o yeruratnam, aged about 57 years, -
37.	Bonasi Koteswara Rao S/o Symon, aged about 37 years, -
38.	Pathuri Ravi S/o Chalapati, aged about 35 years, -
39.	Katuri Koteswara Rao S/o Kotaiah, aged about 48 years, -
40.	Thella Pout S/o Subbaiah, aged about 51 years, -
41.	Katuri Sudhakar S/o Daveedu, aaged about 39 years, -
42.	Kavuri Ragaiah S/o Singaiah, aged about 41 years, -
43.	Kavuri Subbaiah S/o Levaiah, aged about 33 years, -
44.	Gurijala Visweswara‘Rao S/o. Yesobu, aged about 60 years, -
45.	Kavuri Peda Ankaiah'S/o Veeraiah, aged about 45 years, -
46.	Kavuri Ramesh S/o Yellamanda, aged about 41 years, -
47.	Katuri Krupa Rao S/o Issac, aged about 60 years, -
48.	Kanaparti Lazaru S/o Yesobu, aged about 62 years, -
49.	Kuchipudi Premaiah S/o Jashuva, aged about 58 years, -

¶20

Kancherla Subba Rao S/o Yellaiah, aged about 55 years, - 51. Kavuri Singaiah S/o Philip, aged about 62 years, - 52. Pathuri Seshamma W/o Gandhi, aged about 57 years, - 53. Bonasi Rooben S/o China Raghavulu, aged about 50 years, - 54. Kanchela Raghaiah S/o Chenchaiah, aged about 41 years, - 55. Poornaganti Akkamma W/o Veeraiah, aged about 60 years, - 56. Chatia Subba Rao S/o Issac, aged about 50 years, - 57. Katuri Sreenu S/o Kdtaiah, aged about 45 years, - 58. Katuri Ramesh S/o Johan, aged about 39 years, - 59. Pathuri Kotaiah S/o Jujji, aged about 34 years, - 60. Thella Elisha Raju S/o Veeraiah, aged about 35 years, - 61. Pathuri Barna Basu S/o Yellamanda, aged abut 39 years, - 62. Kavuri Yohan S/o Jakraiah, aged about 40 years, - 63. Pathuri Subba Rao S/o Ramaiah, aged about 52 years; ., - 64. Pasumathi Mariyamma W/o Polaiah, aged about 45 years, - 65. Thella Pul S/o Daveedu, aged about 37 years, - 66. Thella Ragu Devasahayam S/o Daveedu, aged about 48 years, - 67. Pathuri Sreenu S/o Gandhi aged about 41 years, - 68. Thella Naga Raju S/o Subba Rao, aged adbout 36 years, - 69. Ravinuthala Suresh S/o lazar, aged about 41 years, - 70. Kuchipudi Foul S/o Philip, aged about 50 years, - 71. Kancharla Yesobu S/o Chenchaiah, aged about 35 years, -

¶21

72.	Kancherla Veeraiah S/o Chenchaiah, aged about 52 years, -
73.	Bonasi Yesobu S/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged about 47 years, -
74.	Kuchipudi Ragaiah S/o Lokaiah, aged about 46 years, -
75.	Kavuri Samson S/o Levaiah, aged about 52 years, -
76.	Kancherla China Yesobu S/o Yohan, aged about 30 years, -
77.	Kondru Padma Priya W/o Josepah, aged about 35 years, -
78.	Kavuri Bujji S/o Singaiah, aged about 34 years, -
79.	Kavuir Philip Raju S/o Ananda Rao, aged about 32 years, -
80.	Bonasi Paramjyothi S/o Raghavulu, aged about 35 years, -
81.	Bonasi Anasurya W/o Dayanand, aged About 55 years, -
82.	Guntagani Singaiah S/o Papaiah, aged about 63 years, -
83.	Kancherla Chitti Babu S/o Yellaiah, aged about 50 years, -
84.	Kancherla Moshe S/o Chenchaiah, aed about 44 years, -
85.	Kuchipudi Prabhu Dasu S/o Jashuva, aged about 60 years, -
86.	Kavuri Sudhakar S/o Yellamanda, aged about 35 years, -
87.	Kavuri Lazer S/o Isrel, aged about 50 years, -
88.	Bonasi Srinivasa Rao S/o China Raghavtrlu, aged about 45, -
89.	Kavuri marthamma W/o Izra, aged about 60 years, -
90.	Kavuri ankaiah S/o Isreal, aed about 32 years, -
91.	Bonasi Chinna S/o Subbaiah, aged about 34 years, -
92,	Gurijala Chinna S/o Subbaiah, aged about 34 years, -
93.	Bhosani Devuni Prasad S/o. Peda Raghavulu, aged about 36,-

¶22

Bonasi Yakob S/o Ragaiah, aged about 34 years, -

¶23

Machavarapu Bhaskar Rao S/o Rattaiah, aged about 56 year, -

¶24

Pathuri.Chalapathi S/o Ramaiah, aged about 60 years, - 97. Katuri Ravi S/o Krupa Rao, aed about 34 years, -

¶25

Pasumarthi Tirupalu S/o Polaiah, aged about 32 years, -

¶26

Kuchipudi Manikya Rao S/o Venkata Subbaiah, -

¶27

Sirimalla Vandanam S/o Krupa Rao, aged about 66 years, - 101. Katuri yesob S/o Samuel, aged about 32 years, -

¶28

Kavuri Salmon, S/o Jakraiah, aged about 50 years

¶29

All are R/o Ammanabrolu villlage, Naguluppalapadu Mandal Prakasam District.

¶30

(R3 to R 102 Not Necessary)

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

I.A. NO: _1 OF 2016rCRPMP. NO: 4162 OF 20161

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order and decree passed in I.A.No.153 of 2014 in I.A.No.39 of 2010 in O.S.No.429 of 2009 on 18-022016, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, pending disposal of the above CRP.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

APHC010746082016

¶39

[3460]

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶41

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶44

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3252/2016

¶45

Between:

¶46

M S Rao, Krishna Dist ...PETITIONER

¶47

AND

¶48

P Yesuratnam Krishna Dist 101 Others and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶49

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶50

1.MADHAVA RJ^O NALLURI

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶52

1.Y VANIL KUMAR 2.N1MMAGADDA REVATHI

¶53

The Court made the following:

¶54

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3252 of 2016

¶55

ORDER:

¶56

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the interlocutory order dated 18.02.2016 in I.A.No.l53 of 2014 in I.A.No.39 of 2010 in O.S.No.429 of 2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. A suit O.S.No.429 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. While so, the respondent Nos.l & 2 herein filed an application to implead themselves in the suit as defendant Nos. 101 & 102. It is the case of the proposed respondents that plaintiff had filed O.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole against Chakravarthula Lakshman Rao @ Lakshman Das and others with regard to suit schedule property. The said suit was compromised before Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the plaintiff and Chakravarthula Lakshman Rao @ Lakshman Das executed Sale Deeds dated 21.08.2004 in favour of the proposed defendant Nos. 101 & 102 respectively of extents Ac. 10.12 cents and Ac.20.00 cents. While so, it was stated that the plaintiff filed E.P.No.lO of 2003 in O.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for execution of registered Sale Deeds in their favour. The said E.P was dismissed as not pressed. Again, the plaintiff E.P.No.14 of 2007 for the very same relief and the said E.P was also dismissed subsequently.

¶57

Parallelly, it was stated that the Endowments Department^hadraisedan objection that the suit schedule property belongs to them before R.D.O, Ongole. Pursuant to the orders passed by the R.D.O. Ongole, the proposed defendants had filed Revision before C.C.L.A. Hyderabad. On enquiry, the C.C.L.A. Hyderabad dismissed the Revision Petition of the Endowments Department by

¶58

¶59

holding that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of Chakravarthula Lakshman Rao (3) Lakshman Das. Questioning^{theordersofthe} C.C.L.A. Hyderabad, the Endowments Department filed^{WritPetitionbeforethis} Court and the petitioner/plaintiff had impleaded himselfⁱⁿ the said Writ^Petition. It was alleged that suppressing the above mentioned facts, the petitioner/plaintiff got mutated his name in the Revenue records. It was also stated that pursuant to the orders of C.C.L.A. Hyderabad, the proposed defendant No. 102 obtained a registered sale deed for Ac.30.12 cents, which was pending for registration. It was in that context, the proposed defendants sought to come on record and contest the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The proposed defendants had enclosed 14 documents inclusive of registered sale deed and proceedings of C.C.L.A. Hyderabad and implead application filed in W.P.No.5670 of 2007.

¶60

The petitioner filed counter contending that the registered Sale Deed dated 21.08.2004 was cancelled on 26.09.2005 and as such same is not binding on the petitioner. It was also pleaded that a similar application was filed in the year 2010 by the proposed defendants, but said application was not pursued and the present application was filed with same averments after commencement of trial.

¶61

The trial Court considering the respective contentions passed an elaborate order allowing the application. Hence, the present^CRPisfiled.

¶62

Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶63

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi vs. lyyamperumal^ to contend that for a party to be to be impleaded in a suit, there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversies involved in the proceedings^{andnoeffective}

¶64

' (2005) 6 see 733

¶65

¶66

decree can be passed in his absence. It is their contention that since the present suit is one for permanent injunction and as no relief was sought against the proposed respondents, they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.

¶67

The learned counsel for respondents contended through their written arguments that subsequent to the impugned order, the trial Court had framed five additional issues on 08.12.2022 on the basis of the written statement of proposed defendant No. 102. It is her contention that even though no relief is sought against the proposed defendants, their presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the suit. The decisions of this Court in Basant Kuma Soni vs. Mukund Das Soni And Two Others^ and Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation^ofGreater Bombay And Others^.

¶68

The narration of facts in the application filed by the proposed defendants reflects a chequered history of litigation involving the contesting parties hereto and also the Endowment Department. It cannot be said from the narration of facts that the proposed defendants are not necessary parties or proper parties to the suit as they claim title and possession over suit schedule property under a registered document. The validity and binding nature of the registered sale deed in favour of the proposed defendant No. 102 is a question to be decided by the trial Court.

¶69

The Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC enables the Court to implead parties suo motu, if it is of the considered opinion that they are necessary parties to the suit to determine any questions involved in the suit. In a suit for injunction, the primary question is whether the plaintiff is in possession of the scheduled property and when the impleading third party claims to be possession, he would be a necessary party to the suit for determination of this core issue of possession.

¶70

' (2010) see Online AP 251

¶71

'(1992) see 2 524

¶72

¶73

The theory of dominus Htus cannot be overstretched in the matter of impleading of parties, which results in ineffective decrees being passed in absence of necessary parties or where the theory is misused to deliberately obtain decree against non interested persons/officials and then use it to assert rights of Plaintiff. It is also for the Court to ensure that the real matter in dispute is effectively decided by impleading all those who are necessary parties.

¶74

Merely because the plaintiff does not choose to implead a person, is not sufficient for rejection of an application to implead. If the Court feels it appropriate that any particular party's presence is necessary before the Court for adjudicating upon the issue involved in the suit, the Court has full power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code to direct addition of such party to the suit. It is to be noted that courts time is limited and that cannot be wasted in passing plausible mischief creating ineffective decrees.

¶75

The Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi i/^s. lyyam Peruma! relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner also states that a necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. The emphasis here is on 'effective decree' and it cannot be said that an effective decree can be passed in the absence of the proposed defendants considering the chequered history of litigation as mentioned above.

¶76

This Court in Racharla Thirupathi and Ors. Vs Gundala Shobha Rani and Ors\ reported in allowed an application of a third party to implead in an injunction suit as that would enable the court to avoid multiplicity of suits.

¶77

" 2014 3 CurCC 455

¶78

¶79

Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the order of the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the proposed defendants and the trial court shall independently consider the respective claims of the parties to the suit.

¶80

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶81

//TRUE COPY//

¶82

SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶83

¶84