Dismissed

Shaik Mohatad Shaida v. Shaik Vazeer Basha

Telangana HC24 Dec 2013CRP/4426/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed against an order refusing the petitioner leave to intervene in a suit for permanent injunction. The Court held the petitioner, having purchased property from the original plaintiff, steps into the plaintiff's shoes and cannot seek admission merely due to subsequent purchase.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Shaik Mohatad Shaida Vs Shaik Vazeer Basha — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

C.R.P.No.4426 of 2010

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.08.2010 in I.A.No.405 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶6

The 1^st respondent herein filed a suit for injunction against the respondents 2 to 5. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein claims to have purchased 15 ankanams of site out of the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff on 17.02.2009 under registered sale deed. He claims that he became the absolute owner of the property and therefore he is a necessary party to the suit. The lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that there was no cause of action for the petitioner to file this application and that the property was purchased during the pendency of the suit.

¶7

Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court?

¶8

Admittedly, the suit was filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff. The 1^st respondent is the plaintiff, whereas respondents 2 to 5 are defendants in the suit for permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner claims to have purchased the property from the plaintiff. Thus, the petitioner steps into the shoes of the 1^st respondent/plaintiff. His fate depends upon the fate of the 1^st respondent. It is not his case that the respondents are also

¶9

interfering with his possession after his purchase of the property from the plaintiff. As rightly observed by the Court below merely because he purchased the property from the plaintiff, he cannot seek to come on record.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in Racharla Thirupathi v Gundala Shobha Rani^[1] . In that suit, one Gundala Siva Rani filed the suit claiming that she purchased the suit schedule property from the wife of one Devadas and one Ranadheer Reddy under registered sale deed dated 04.04.2006 and the third parties who wanted to be impleaded claimed that they had purchased from their vendors who had purchased the property on 31.12.1998 from Bokka Devadas. Thus, the facts of the case are entirely different from the facts of the present case.

¶11

There are no merits in this petition. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶12

__________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J

¶13

Dt. 24^th December, 2013

¶14

PNV

¶15

[1] 2013(5) ALT 209

Shaik Mohatad Shaida v. Shaik Vazeer Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Mohatad Shaida v. Shaik Vazeer Basha

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

Polam Reddy Venugopala Reddy Vs Smt. Vuggumudi Kalpana

B.V.S.R. Murthy, Vs Sri. A.K. Khan, IPS

Sardar Mahender Singh Bagga Vs Mohammed Ahmed (died)

Pokkali Bala Krishnaiah, Vs Dumpala Pitchaiah

M.A. Jaleel Vs Sri A.K. Khan

A.Nagoor Vs Sri Ajay Sawhney, I.A.S.