In a civil revision, the High Court held that an application seeking impleadment of purchasers as defendants in a partition suit was highly belated and dismissed, finding no merit in the revision.
The revision petition and the connected Criminal Revision Petition are dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Civil Revision Petition No.2071 of 2012
Date: 08-3-2013
Between
Vinnakota Venkata Ram Sarma
… Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff
and
Vinnakota Venkata Rama Jogi Sarma and 9 others
… Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Civil Revision Petition No.2071 of 2012
Order:
The petitioner seeks for the impleadment of the respondents 11 and 12 as defendants 11 and 12 in the suit. I.A.No.404 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff before the trial court under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C stood dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid by the plaintiff.
2. The father of the defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the plaintiff are said to be brothers.
The plaintiff laid the suit for partition. The suit was laid against as many as 10 persons. The plaintiff however came forward with a petition in 2011 that the defendants 1 and 2 unlawfully sold Ac.0-03 cents of land each out of Item No.1 of plaint schedule property to the respondents 11 and 12. Contending that the respondents 11 and 12 are necessary parties, the plaintiff seeks for an order to permit the plaintiff to bring the respondents 11 and 12 as defendants 11 and 12 in the case.
3. Admittedly, the respondents 11 and 12 are purchasers of the property. Admittedly, the property is part of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule. Be that as it may, the respondents 11 and 12 apparently purchased the property in November, 1996. While the suit was laid in 2005, the plaintiff slept over to file the application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C till 2011. The trial court dismissed the application as being highly belated.
I see no reason to differ with the opinion of the trial court. The application is highly belated and deserves to be dismissed.
4. That apart, while the respondents 11 and 12 purchased the property way back in 1996, perhaps by 2011 they perfected their title by adverse possession. I make it clear that I am not making any observation that the respondents 11 and 12 have prefected their title by adverse possession. It is a matter to be resolved by the
trial court. At the same time, the plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate at one and the same time contenting that he is in the joint possession of the joint family properties on the one hand and contending in the same breadth that he is not aware that the respondents 11 and 12 have been in possession of the part of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property.
5. Viewed in any angle, I see no merits in this revision. This revision is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, C.R.P.M.P. No.2784 of 2012 also stands dismissed. No costs.
6. Needless to state that the rights of the plaintiff visà-vis the respondents 11 and 12, however, are protected under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
K.G.SHANKAR, J.
08th March, 2013. Ak
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Civil Revision Petition No.2071 of 2012
08th March, 2013. (Ak)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C for impleadment of necessary parties was filed within the permissible period.
Whether the purchaser had perfected title by adverse possession by the time the application was filed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinnakota Venkata Ram Sarma
Vinnakota Venkata Rama Jogi Sarma and 9 others
K.G. Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
