Allowed

Smt. Nomula Sarojana v. Smt. Jama Rakhee

Telangana HC25 Mar 2022CRP/139/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed two civil revision petitions filed under Article 227. The Court held that the lower courts committed jurisdictional errors by dismissing an application to implead the Tahsildar as a necessary party and rejecting an application to amend pleadings to introduce subsequent events regarding a conveyance deed executed during the suit's pendency.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 14.02.2020 in IA Nos. 413 and 412 of 2019 are set aside, and the respective applications are allowed.

Smt. Nomula Sarojana Vs Smt. Jama Rakhee — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 139 and204 OF 2021

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:^'139 OF 2021

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the .Order dated 14lO2l2O2O in l.A.No. 41312019 in O.S.No.24512016 on the file of the Court of the lll Senior Civil Judge,City Civil Court Secunderabad .

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Nomula Sarojana, Wo late N. Lakshmi Narayana. Agcd 73 Ycars, Occ. Household, Rio Il.No. I 0-4-A/324, Addagutta, Secunderabad

¶10

..PETIT-IONER/ PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶11

AND

¶12

Srnt. Jama Rakhee, Wo Jama Thaneesha, Aged 42 years, Occ. Prt. Service, R/o H.No. l0-5816/9lBll,lndira Lakshm. Nagar, Thukaramgate, North Lalaguda. Secunderabad

¶13

..RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶14

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 24512016 on the file of the Court of the lll Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad pending disposal of the above CRP and grant such other reliefs as this Honble High Court may deem and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

lA NO: 1 oF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 15 t CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased to

¶18

dispense with the petilioner/ for filing decreetal order along with CC of Order passed in lA No. 413 of 2019 dt. 14.O2.202O .

¶19

lA NO: 3 OF 2021.

¶20

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 receive the Additional Material Papers being filed herewith on behalf of petitioner herein to be considered at the time of hearing of above case in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. R V INDIRA KUMARI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent : G RAVI CHANDRAN

¶23

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 204 OF 2021

¶24

Petition Under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 1410212020 in l.A.No. 41212019 in O.S.No.24512016 on the file of the Court of the lll Senior Civil Judge,City Civil Court Secunderabad .

¶25

Between:

¶26

Smt. Nomula Sarojini, W/o late N. Lakshmi Narayana, Aged 73 Years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No. 10-4-41324, Addagutta, Secunderabad

¶27

... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAI NTIFF

¶28

AND

¶29

Smt. Jama Rakhee, W/o Jama Thaneesha, Aged 42 years, Occ. Pvt. service, Rt/o H.No. 10-5-816/9/8/1 , lndira Lakshmi Nagar. Thukaramgate, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad

¶30

RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶31

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶32

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in 0.S.No. 24512016 on the file of the Court of the lll Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad pending disposal of the above CRP .

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. R V INDIRA KUMARI

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent : SRl. G RAVI CHANDRAN

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶37

CRP Nos.139 and 2O4 of2O21

¶38

COMMON ORDER:

¶39

C.R.P.No.i39 of 2O2l is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.02.2O20 in IA No.413 f 2019 in OS No.245 of 2O16 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. The said IA was filed under Order-l Rule- 1O of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short'CPC') fiied by the petitioner/plaintiff. Whereas, CRP No.204 of 2021 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assaitng the order dated 14.O2.2O2O in IA No.412 of 2Ol9 in OS No.245 of 2016 on the fi1e of the III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. The said IA was filed under Order-VI Rule-17 of CPC. Since both the CRPs are a,rising out of same OS No.245 of 2076, it is proposed to dispose of the same, through this common order.

¶40

The plaintiff has filed IA No.413 of 2019 under Order-I Ruie-lo of CPC to impiead the Tahsildar, Marredpally, Secunderabad as defendant No.2 in the original suit in OS No.245 of .2O16. The learned III Senior Civil Judge, City

¶41

PaEe 2 of L2

¶42

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39 & 204^of202l

¶43

Civil Court, Hyderabad, has dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff has^filed CRP No.l39 of 2027.

¶44

The plaintiff has filed IA No.412 of 2Ol9 in OS No.245 of 2016 under Order-VI Rule-17 CPC to amend para-IX (a) of plaint seeking for cancellation of registered conveyance cleed document No.324 of 2017, dated 08.02.2017 stating that during pendency of the suit, on 08.O2.2017 the said conveyance deed was executed and it is creating cloud on her title and the same needs to be cancelled. The learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, through the order impugned, dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff has filed CRP No.2O4 of 2O2t.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Perused the materia-l available on record. The detailed submissions have been made by both the paf'ties, which are more or less on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary for this Court to refer in detail such submissions. However,

¶46

PaBe 3 of 12

¶47

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39 & 204 of202l

¶48

the submissions so made have received due consideration of the Court.

¶49

For the sake of convenience, the parties arc hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arraved in the original suit.

¶50

The plaintiff has filed the original suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule property. The written statement of defendant is also fi1ed. The issues are settled. At that stage, the present application in IA No.413 of 2Ol9 was filed under Order-l Rule-10 CPC to implead the Tahsildar, Marredpally, Secunderabad as defendant No.2. This application was dismissed by the Court below with an observation that the suit is liled for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of suit schedule house bearing No.lO-4-A/a47 / I, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad admeasuring 47.9 squa-re yards, out of 96 square yards by virtue of assigned patta issued by the Tahsildar, Marredpally on 25.05.2O15. As such, she has no title and approached the Court to declare her title^r.r''hich

¶51

Page 4 of L2

¶52

AVRJ CRP Nos.139 &^204of202l

¶53

is in dispute and she carnot claim any right^{to callcelthe} registered document in dispute.

¶54

It appears, during pendency of the said suit, the Tahsildar, Marredpally has executed a conveyance deed document No.324 of 2017, dated 08.02.2017 in favour of the defendant conveying an extent of 47 .B square 1,ards in Survey No.74 with premises bearing No.lO-4-A/447 ll, Addagutta, East Marredpally, hence, a request u.as made for adding Tahsildar as necessary party to the suit.

¶55

Order-I Rule-lO of CPC enables the Court to add aly person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is felt necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon ald settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one ol the objects of said provision. However, the object ol this provision is not to change the scope and character of suit by adding new parties. The intendment and object ol the provision is only to invest the Court with ample po,,r,er and jurisdicrioh to strike out name of any parry impropefly

¶56

Page S of 12

¶57

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39 & 204 of 2021

¶58

joined or to add ary person who ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate upon. and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

¶59

Reverting back to the facts of the case on hand, the plaintiff haq filed original suit on 12.O9.2016 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. During pendency of the said suit, the Tahsildar, Marredpally allegedly executed conveyance deed in respect of land admeasuring 47.8 square yards in Survey No.74 with premises bearing No.lO-4-A/447 / 1, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad, vide document No.324, dated Oa.O2.2Ol7 in favour of .the defendant, whereby^the plaintiff has sought to implead the Tahsildar,^East Marredpally as defendant No.2 in the original^{suit for} effectively and completely adjudicating^{the matter in} dispute.

¶60

The contention of the^{plaintiff is that by virtue of the} said conveyance deed document^{No.324 of 2O17 dated} O8.O2.2O17 executed by the^{Tahsildar, trast Marredpally,}

¶61

¶62

Page 6 of 12

¶63

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39 &^{204 of202l}

¶64

the defendant started claiming title^{adverse to that of the} plaintiff arrd the said document is executed v/ithout^any basis during pendency of the original suit,^{hence,Tahsildar} is a necessary party to be impleaded as defendant^{No.2 in} the original suit.

¶65

Having regard to the provisions of Order-I, Rule-10 of CPC in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the application filed by the plaintiff for impleadment of the Tahsildar, who executed conveyance deed in respect of disputed property in favour of tJle defendant during pendency of the suit, is misconceived or not maintainable. The plaintiff is directly and substantially concerned with and effected by the conveyance deed executecl by the Tahsildar, Marredpally. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to implead the Tahsildar, Marredpally as one of the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Therefore, I hnd a jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in dismissing the application filed under Order-l Rule-10 CPC to implead the Tahsildar,. Marredpally, Secunderabad as defendant No.2

¶66

Page 7 ot 12

¶67

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39 & 204 of202l

¶68

in the original suit in OS No.245 of 2016. Accordingly, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶69

CRP No.204 of 2021 is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 14.02.2O2O in IA No.412 of 2019 in OS No.245 of 2016 wherein the application filed by the plaintiff under Order-VI Rule- 17 of CPC was dismissed by the Court below. The plaintiff has sought amendment of the pleadings in the plaint by introducing the subsequent events alleging that during pendency of the origina-l suit, the Tahsildar, East Marredpally has executed a conveyarce deed document No.224 of 2017 on 08.02.2017 in favour of the defendant and by virtue of the said conveyance deed, the defendant started making rival claim, hence, the subsequent events during pendenc-y of the suit need to be incorporated in the pleadings of the plaint. The trial Court has dismissed the said application.

¶70

Feeling aggrieved by the same, CRP No.2O4 of 2021 is filed alleging that the Court^{belou'has failed to observethat} pending disposal of the suit,^the Tahsildar^{has executed a} conveyance deed for the^{part of the land in respect of which}

¶71

Page 8 of 12

¶72

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39 & 204 of202l

¶73

the Tahsildar has issued assignment patta^under possession of the plaintiff, vide Tahsildar proceedings No.BPLHYDl50l23OO27BO, dated 28.05.2015 without verifying the record, without inspecting the suit schedule property ald without issuing notice to the plaintiff, who is effected party

¶74

Order-VI Rule-l7 of CPC deals with amendment of pleadings. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allor,r, either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real question ln controversy between the parties. Provided no such applicatior-r for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence tlle party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

¶75

In Vidgabai and others- u. pad.ma.lathq. and. others\ the Honble Supreme Court of India has discussed the legislative intent behind making the provision of Rule 17 of

¶76

'^{,ttR zoog sc u.tl}

¶77

Page 9 of 12

¶78

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39 & 204 of202l

¶79

Order 6 of CPC. At para-7 of the said judgment, it was observed that the provisioris of Order-VI Rule- 17 of CPC are mandatory in nature. The Court's jurisdiction to allow an application under Order-VI Rule- 17 of CPC is taken away unless the condition precedent therefor is satisfied i.e., the Court must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

¶80

Thus, the object of Rule-17 of CPC is to minimise the litigation and to minimise the delay to avoid multiplicity of suits. Therefore, Courts while determining the applications Iiled under Order-VI Rule-17 of CPC considered^such applications which are filed at the earliest^{stage before} commencement of the trial and as and when^{the parties} have exercised due diligence.

¶81

lo Pandit Malhart Mahale^{o. Monlka Pandl Mahale2,} the Supreme Court has^{held that anapplication for} amendment of^{plaint can be allowed by a Courteven after} the trial has^{begunonly on the groundthat such additional}

¶82

'?1zozo1^tlsccs4

¶83

Page¹⁰ of 12

¶84

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39^{& 204ot202l}

¶85

plea could not have been raised by the plaintiff before commencement of the trial and that the Court is^satisfied that such an arnendment is necessary to decide^{the real} dispute between the parties.

¶86

In lV. C. Bansal u. Uttar Pradesh Financial

¶87

Corporation and anotheP, the Supreme Court rvhile summarizing the principles for consideration in respect of application under Order-VI Rule-17 CPC, held that i) rvhen the suit is still at the initial stage i.e.,^'r,r,hen the trial has not yet begun; ii) where the proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of the cause of action; and iii) where applications are not filed at belated stage; under these circumstances Court should be liberal in allorving the proposed amendments.

¶88

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the application liled by the plaintiff under Order I Rule_1O CpC vide IA No.413 of 2OL9 to implead the Tahsildar, Marredpally as defendant No.2 in the original suit. Undisputedly, during pendency of the suit, the Tahsildar, , (2o1q 2 scc 347

¶89

Page 1t of 12

¶90

AVRJ CRP Nos.l39 & 204 of202l

¶91

I t

¶92

Marredpally has executed a conveyance deed as indicated above in favour of the defendant in respect of part of the property for which a patta certificate is issued to the plaintiff arrd immediately after knowing the execution of conveyance deed by the Tahsildar, Marredpally in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has filed the present application in IA No.412 of 2OI9 for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint. This Court as indicated in para- 1 I supra allowed the application filed in IA No.413 of 2019, impleading the Tahsildar as defendant No.2. Therefore, when the facts of the case on hand are tested on the touchstone of the principles laid in the above^{decisions, the} answer is in the positive, the plaintiff is entitled^{for the} proposed amendments introducing the^{plea for cancellation} of the said conveyance deed^{executed by the Tahsildar,} Marredpally in favour of^{the defendantNo' 1during} pendency of the original suit.

¶93

In the facts and^{circumstances ol the case, as} discussed above, I find^{a jurisdictional error committedby} the Court beiow in^{dismissing the applicationfiled under}

¶94

¶95

P age^{LZ of 12} AVR] CRP Nos.l39^{& 204of2021}

¶96

¶97

Order-VI Rule-l7^{CPC for arnendmentof the pleadings in} the plaint by^{incorporating the subsequent eventsof} execution of^{conveyancedeed by theTahsildar'} Marredpally in favour^{of defendant No'l duringpendency} of the suit and the^{order impugned is liable to be set aside'}

¶98

2L. In the result, CRP^{Nos.139and 204 of 2O2l are} allowed. The orders^{impugneddated 14.02.202Oin lA} Nos.413 and 412 of 2OI9 in^{OS No.245 of2OL6} respectively on the file of the III Senior^{Civil Judge,} Secunderabad, are hereb-1, set aside and the said^IA Nos.413 and 412 of 2Ol9 are allowed.^{Consequently, the} plaintiff is permitted to amend the pleadings in the plaint as proposed and also to implead the Tahsildar, Marredpally as defendant No.2 in the original suit. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶99

As a sequel, interlocutory appiiczrtions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶100

Sd/-K.ONESIM

¶101

¶102

Note: Amended as per the orders or rhe Reqistrar (Jrdi.ffisJ:t:fNT^REGISTRAR 5/7t2O22 made on the tefter fited.by smi i v lrji# i,Irr'n, Advocate for f ii#i#,f tri#i'irf^,j:+u+in:uq1fi

¶103

;;,'r,lrg,g

¶104

//rRuE coPYil '."rEH#/#o.$ SEcTffioFFICER

¶105

lo' 1 . The III Senior Civil Judgc,City Civil Courr Secundelabatl 2. one CC ro SRt. R v iNDtRA KUMART;;r;te [opUC] 3. One CC to SRl. G RAV| CHANDRAN Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare bopy cDr&---

/ i J /

i t-6

(
(
HIGH COURT
DAfED.2510312022
DAT ED:0510712022 - -11
l
<br><br>E. s l-4 r
\ /\t
I
AIV1ENDED OIMIVON 2 E AIJ!] 2[?2
ii
CRP.No.139 AND 204 of 2021'
:
ALLOWTNC'IHE ('ITP
@
w*-
q,^-

¶110

Smt. Nomula Sarojana v. Smt. Jama Rakhee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nomula Sarojana v. Smt. Jama Rakhee

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

Katta Suresh Babu Vs Gorre Santhosh Kumar and Another

M. Bhadri Raju Vs D.K.Srinivas Raju (since died for LRs 3 to 5)

M. Sita Rama Raju Vs D.K.Srinivas Raju (Died)

Smt. Nomula Sarojini Vs Smt. Jama Rakhee

Mohammed Basheer Ahmed Vs Abdul Khaja Moinuddin and Another

Mekala Lingaiah and 3 Others Vs Edunuri Lachamma and Another