Allowed

Anthati Vasantha v. Ilapuram Kusuma Kumari

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023CRP/2067/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition under Article 227 challenging the trial court's refusal to implead petitioners as necessary parties in a specific performance suit. Relying on Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the court held the trial court erred and ordered the impleadment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Order dated 02.06.2023 in I.A.No.417 of 2023 was set aside and petitioners were directed to be impleaded in the suit.

Anthati Vasantha Vs Ilapuram Kusuma Kumari — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE^SUDHA c lVlL REVISION PETITION NO: 2067 OF²⁰²³

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of^{lndia, aggrieved by the} orders dt.02l0612O23 in \A.No.41712023 in OS.No.27612016^{passed by the court of} Senior Civil Judge,Nalgonda^.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Anthati Vasantha, W/o Lingaiah, Aged about^{47 yea-s Occ.Agriculture,Fl/o} Perepally (V), Chityal (Mandal) Nalgonda District.

¶10

Anthati Rajitha, W/o Ramasathaiah, Aged^{about 31 years, Occ.Agriculture,} R/o Perepally (V), Chityal (Mandal), Nalgonda District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/PROPOSED DEFDT.NOS. 3&4

¶12

AND

¶13

1 llapuram Kusuma Kumari, W/o Bhupathi Reddy,^{Aged about 45 years,} Occ.Govt. Employee, Fi./o V.T.Colony, Hyderabad^{Road, Nalgonda.}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/

¶15

Respondent no. 1 /Plaintiff.

¶16

Jerripothula Radhika, W/o Naveen Goud,^{Aged about 30 years, Occ.} Household, Fyo Anneparthy^(V), Nalgonda^{(Mandal) NalgondaDistrict.}

¶17

Gundala Narender, Sio Balram, Aged about 34^{years, Occ.Business,Fi/o 7-3-} 239/1 , New Sairam Nagar Colony, Bairamalguda, Saroornagar^{R.R.District.} ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 set} aside orders dt.O2l06l2o23 in lA.No.41712023 in OS.No.27612016^{passed by the} court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda and consequently allow^{lA. No.41 7/2023 in} OS.No.276l2016.

¶20

Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRl. AZIZ HUSSAIN Counsel forthe Respondent.l: SRI K SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent.2: SRI SRILATHA PALAKURTHI

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2067 of 2o23

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Civil Revision petition is liled against the Order dated 02.06.2023 in I.A.No.417 of 2023 in O.S.No.276 of 2Ot9 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

¶25

O.S.No.276 of 2015 was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein against respondents No.2 and 3 for specihc performance of Agreement of Sale dated 2O.O7.2O14 and alternate relief to pay the amount u,ith intcrest was also sought for. During the pendency of the said suit, petitioners herein filed I.A.No.4l7 ot 2023, stating that they have purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deeds dated. 27.07.2021 uid.e document Nos.l I43 &, ll44 of 2O2I on the iile of Joint Sub-Registrar, Chityal. The husband of the petitioner No.2 herein had received a message from Dharani portal of Nalgonda District stating that a suit was pending in respect ol the suit lands purchased by them and on enquiry they came to know about the pendency of the suit. The respondent No.3 did not disclose about the pendency of the suit at the time of registration with a malahde intention and he had also

I^I

iliitij..l "

mentioned wrong boundaries in the link documents. They intend to contest the matter by frling a written statement. They also stated that as they are enjoying the suit lands, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit and hence requested the Court to implead them as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit. The trial Court observed that they are neither necessary parties nor the proper parties to adjudicate the suit further and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred the present Civil Revision petition

¶30

As per Order 1 rule 10 of C.p.C, necessary party is the one in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed and the proper party is the one who is necessary for final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings. Therefore, the addition of the parties is depending upon the judicial discretion which has to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It was observed by the trial Court that as per the record, respondent No.2 had sold the suit land to respondent No.l and accordingly an Agreement of Sale was entered between them on 20.OT .2014 for a total sale consideration of Rs.l4,g1,250/- and received Rs.t2,OO,O0O/_ as advance and agreed to receive the balance oI Rs.2,g1,25O/_ within one year from the date of execution of the Agreement of

¶31

)

¶32

Sale. When respondent No.1 approached the respondent No.2 on 10.06.20I5 to pay the balance amount, he refused to receive the same and then respondent No. 1 came to know that respondent No.2 executed the registered sale deed uid.e document No.4482 ol 2074 dated 06. 1 1.2074 in favour of respondent No.3 with a malafide intention to cause loss to him and thus played fraud upon him. The respondent No.l presented the plaint on 22.06.2015 and the same was numbered as O.S.No.276 of 2015. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.3 did nor turn up before this Court, hence he was set exparte. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.3 herein executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and sold the suit lands in their favour, as such they are proper and necessary parties and therefore petitioners requested the Court to implead therri as parties in the suit for proper adjudication of the dispute, but the trial Court observed that if they are added as parties, the scope of the suit for specific performance would be enlarged and it would be converted into a suit for title and for effective adjudication of the suit, the presence of such parties cannot be said to be necessary parties and accordingly dismissed the application.

\ \

The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the case of Gurusuamg Nrrd.ar Vs. p.Lakshmt Ammal and. others, in which it was held as follows:

¶37

.^{"-W:n a litigationis pending betueena plaintiff} and. a dekndant as to the right to a particl.tlar estate, the nlecesstties of mankind required that the d.ecbion of the Court in the suit shall be finding, not onlA on the Litigant parties, but also on those u.tho deiue title und.er them bg alienations mad.e pending the suit, tahether such alie pendinsproceedinss.,t,ni,i""',1,.!"X.::"::i^::::::::;"{"tX certatntA that the titigation tuould euer come to an end,,.

¶38

He also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the case of l(cstun Vs. Uggamltentmal q.nd others, in which

¶39

rt was held as follows:

¶40

"Second part of Order I rule 10 sub_rule (2) of the CpC utould clearlg sltou.t that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if theg are dead thiir tegal ,"pr"".n,*iu." o" a-lso a person who had purcha,sed the contracted_ propertA from^the uendor. In equity as ttell a_s in lau, the contract constitutes rights and. also regulates the liabilities of the parttes. A purchaser is a necessary porta os he would. be affected if he had purchased uith notice of the contract, but a person who claims aduerselg to the claim of a uend.or is, houLeuer, not a necessary partg. From the aioue, it is nou clear that ttDo tests are to be satisfted for determining the question utho is a necessary partA. Tests are _ (i) there must be a right to some relief against such partg in respect of the

¶41

controuersies inuolued in the proceedings (2) no effectiue d.ecree can be passed. in the absence of sich partg.

¶42

He further submitted that though the petitioners are not

¶43

necessary parties, they are proper parties.

¶44

)

¶45

Admittcdly, the proper party is the one who is necessary for final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings and for proper adjudication of the case. Considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that the Order of the trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and petitioners are to be impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and for proper adjudication of the case.

¶46

In thc result, the Civil Rcvision Petition is allowed, setting aside the Order dated 02.06.2023, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.417 of 2023 in O.S.No. of 276 of 2015. There shall be no Order as to cos[s.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/- N.GHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR &,--

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

¶52