Dismissed

G.Prameela, v. R.Venkata Reddy

Telangana HC2 Jul 2010CRP/1913/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking impleadment of an agreement holder as a necessary party in an injunction suit, holding that without registered title transfer, she is not an effected party. The court distinguished cited precedents involving registered sale deeds and specific performance.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

G.Prameela, Vs R.Venkata Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶4

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1913 of 2010

¶5

Between: G.Prameela

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND R.Venkata Reddy and 2 others

¶8

.....RESPONDENTS

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1913 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner is the third party to the suit proceedings in O.S.444/2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein against the 3^rd respondent herein. The said suit was filed for grant of injunction restraining the defendant therein from opening ventilators in plaint-A schedule property and for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close down the windows and ventilators. In the said suit the petitioner filed I.A.1248/2009 under Or.1 Rule-10 CPC seeking for her impleadment as 2^nd defendant therein contending that she entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the suit schedule property and she is going to enter into regular sale deed with the defendant very

¶14

soon and therefore, she got interest over the suit schedule property and she is proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings. The suit is filed seeking direction to direct the defendant therein to close down the windows and ventilators. Admittedly, the petitioner is only an agreement holder and no title of the said property has been passed on to the petitioner. Unless the title is passed on and the property is transferred in favour of the petitioner, it cannot be said that she is a proper and necessary party in so far as injunction suit is concerned.

¶15

The petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Narasamma vs.Habeebjan^[1] . I have perused the said judgment. In the said case the proposed party purchased property under a registered sale deed and therefore, it cannot be said that the purchaser is not proper and interested party and therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. Another judgment cited by the petitioner is in the case of Bala Narasimha and others vs. Gangaputra Co-operative Housing Society and others^[2] . The said case is relating to specific performance of the agreement wherein the proposed party, sought to be impleaded is earlier agreement holder and therefore it was held that the earlier agreement holder in a suit for specific performance is proper and necessary party. The said judgment is also not applicable to the present facts of the case.

¶16

In this case, the dispute is between the plaintiff and the owner of the property, and till the ownership is passed on to the petitioner herein, it cannot be said that she is an effected party and that she is proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings. In that view of the matter, the Court below rightly dismissed the said application. I do not see and infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the said order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶17

V.ESWARAIAH,J

¶18

Dated: 02.07.2010 Dsr

¶19

[1] 1998(3) ALT 469

¶20

[2] AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh 166

G.Prameela, v. R.Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Prameela, v. R.Venkata Reddy

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

A.Balakishan Vs State of A.P and 3 Others

Kanchanapalli Lalitha, Vs I/C Police Transport Organisation, Hyderabad. A.P.

Dummani Chena Kesaiah , Uppa Kesaiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police

Smt. K.Krishnakumari, Vs Darapaneni Krishnakumar

S.a.Khader Valli Vs P.H.Swarna Latha

D. Jayamma Vs M.Sanath Kumar