Dismissed

Pammi Sreedharachary v. Allapati Shyamala Devi

Telangana HC22 Dec 2023CRP/430/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial Court's refusal to implead creditors as parties to a suit for specific performance. Relying on supreme court precedents, the Court held that strangers to the contract are not necessary or proper parties even if they hold execution petitions against the defendant.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed confirming the order dated 18.02.2021 rejecting the application for impleadment.

Pammi Sreedharachary Vs Allapati Shyamala… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[ 3385 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶5

1.'. . r

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶8

I i.

¶9

CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 430 OF 2021

¶10

Civil Revision Petition fil€d under Article 227 of the Constitution of^lndia, aggrieved by order dated 18.02.2021^passed in 1.A.NO.660 of 2019^{in O.S.No. 04} of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Vl Additional District Judge,^Mahabubabad.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Pammi Sreedharachary, S/o Veera Ragahavachary aged^{41 years,Occ} Business, Fi/o Mahabubabad Dist. Mahabubabad

¶13

¶14

Katakam Sreekanth, S/o Ranganaya kulu aged 40 years Occ: Business Rl/o Mahabubabad District Mahabubabad

¶15

Suruju Rameshbabu, S/o Amruthachary aged 41 Years Occ: Business Ri/ Warangal, Warangal Oistrict

¶16

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONE

¶17

AND

¶18

' 1. Allapati Shyamala Devi, Wo Ramachandra Murthy aged 52 years, Occ: House wife Rl/o Mahabubabad Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District. - 506 101.

¶19

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF

¶20

Male Jeevan Kumar, S/o Madhusudhan Rao aged 35^years, Occ: Business FJo. 1-3-11215, Venugopala Swamy Street, Mahabubabad Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶21

.-RESPONOENT/RESPONDENTZDEFENDANT'}

¶22

{
ritrii

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affkJavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to grah stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 04 of 2013 on the file of the Vl Additiona District Judge at Mahabubabad, pending disposal of the main C.R.P.

.:.r

l+i

20F 2021

Petition under section 151.cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the-affid.avir.fited in support^o1in_e-ggiitio'1.ir,Liigh'ior.r may be pteased ro respective CRp.extend the stay sranted on 16.o3.2oi1 in CRp N..4"CO "f zOzt iitth; ;;";; ;;

¶30

Counsel for the petitioners: SRl. N V R RAJYA LAKSHIUI

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent no.1: KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent no.2:--

¶33

The Court made the fo owing: ORDER

¶34

''!'a:
g.*i ' r1 ;
':l'
flil
1

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.^SUJANA

¶36

CML REVISION PETITION No.43O OF 2O2L

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

Challenge in this Civil Rerrision Petition is the order that^is rendered by the Court of VI Additional District^Judge, Mahabubabad, in I.A.No.660 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.4 of^2Ol3 dated 18.02.2021.

¶39

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the^respective parties and perused the material available record.

¶40

A perusal of the material available on record discloses that the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2013 on the frle of VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad, was fiIed by respondent No.l/plaintiff herein seeking the relief of specific^performance of^agreementof sale dated 26.ll.2Ol1 against respondent^{No.2/defendant} herein. During pendency of the^said suit,^{the revisionpetitioners} have filed I.A.No.66O of 2OL9 under Order I^{Rule 1O(2) of Civil} Procedure Code, seeking to^{implead themas defendantNos.2 to 4} in O.S.No.4 of 2013.

¶41

According to petitioners,^petitioner No.l herein filed^suit urde O.S.Nos.56 of 2012, petihoner^No.2 herein filed^{suit rzde}

¶42

¶43

¶44

51(s, J C.R.P.No.43O of 2O21

¶45

O.S.No.S4 of 2Ol2 and petitioner No.3 herein Iiled suit uide O.S.No.53 of 2Ol2 and one Pammi Ashoka Chary also filed a suit vide O.S.No.SS of 2Ol2 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, for recovery of money against respondent No.2 herein, who is sole defendant in O.S.No.4 of 2013. The suit schedule property owned by respondent No.2/defendant in O.S.No.4 of 2O13, was attached before judgment in the said suits and subsequently, the sajd suits are decreed. In all the above said suits, E.P.Nos.13 of 2Ol7,16 of 2OL7,17 of 2Ol7 and 15 of 2017 respectively were pending for recover the amounts by way of selling the property. The suit schedule property, which was attached before Judgment in the above suits, is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2013. The petitioners pleaded that respondent No.2/defendant did not whisper about entering of agreement of sale with respondent No.1/plaintilf in O.S.No.4 of 2013 and therefore, the subject agreement of sale in O.S.No.4 of 2013 is a clear collusion between the parties to the suit and was initiated to defraud the rights of the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioners sought for their impleadment as defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.4 of 2013.

¶46

t'l

¶47

¶48

.sl(s, J C.R.P.No.43O of 2O21

¶49

¶50

Respondent No. 1/plaintiff herein opposed the said application contending that the petitioners are strangers to the suit transaction, as such, they a-re neither necessa_ry nor proper parties to be impleaded as defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.4 of 20t3.

¶51

After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the said petition uide order dated lg.O2.2o2l observing that mere agreement of sale does not confer any right or interest over the property as per Section 54 of the Trarrsfer of Property Act; in the event of execution of any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the ownership rights of the plaintiff are subject to liabilities and attachments covered by the suit as per Section 55 o[ Transfer of Property Act and in the event of impleading the petitioners herein as parties to the suit, it would alter the nature of the suit apart from embarrassing - the suit proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order of disrnissal, the petitioners/proposed defendant Nos.2 to 4 preferred the present Civil Revision petition.

¶52

karned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit as the suit schedule property in O.S.No.4 of 2013 and the subject property in Execution Petitions, which are frled by the petitioners herein

/ I I

/ I

sI(S. ./ C.R.P.No.43O of 2O'21

¶57

agamst respondent No.2/defendant for recovery of amounts by selling the propert5z, is one arrd the same and the trial Court errbneously rejected the petition filed under Order I Rule lO of C. P.C., without observing that prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, if the suit is decreed. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order of the learned tria.l Judge by allowing the present civil rerrision petition.

¶58

On the other hald, learned counsel for respondent No.l/plaintiff would submit that the agreement of sale was executed in the year, 2Ot I prior to fiIing of the suits for recovery of money by the petitioners herein and the peUtioners filed suits in tlre year, 2OI2. The petitioners herein are not at aII proper or necessaq/ parties to the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, as they are not parties to the contract in O.S.No.4 of 2Ol3 and they ean agitate.their grievance in ttreir Execution petitions. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the order of the trial Court, as such, prayed th-----' rrar'u L, e C uourt to dismiss the civil Revision petition.

¶59

Having regard to the rival submissions ald on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the apprication under order ; ;;;;';"#;;: :";

¶60

¶61

¶62

SKS, J C.R.P.No.430 of 2021

¶63

¶64

¶65

to implead them as defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.4 of 2Ol3 stating that they are the creditors of respondent No.2/defendant. They have got decrees in their favour for recovery of money lent by them to respondent No.2/defendant, as such, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, duly attached the suit property for recovery of decretal amounts and they also submitted that the defendant did not whisper about entering of agreement of sa-le with the plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2013. Hence, they contended that the agreement of sale covered by suit in O.S.No.4 of 2013 is a clear collusion between the parties to the suit and was initiated to defraud the rights of the petitioners. Hence, they prayed the Court to implead them as parties.

¶66

The suit in O.S.No.4 of 2Ol3 is filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff against respondent No.2/defendant seeking specific performance of agreement of sale d.ated. 26.11.2011 in her favour. These petitioners are claiming right over the suit schedule property in O.S.No.4 of 2O13 stating that the said property is the subject property in Execution Petitions filed by them. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said suit is a collusive suit, if decree is passed in the suit in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff, they cannot execute the

¶67

¶68

¶69

SI(S, J C.R.P.No.43O of 2O21

¶70

¶71

decree passed in money suits. Whereas, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintilf is that the petitioners are strangers to the agreement of sa-le and he placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Kasturi us. Igrgamperumal and. otherst wherein in para Nos.2l and 22, it is held as follows:

¶72

For the reasons aforesaid, in our view, the stranger to the contract, namely, tJle respondent Nos. I and 4 to I I making claim independent and adverse to the title of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are neither necessarJr nor proper parties and therefore, not entitled to join as party defendants in the suit for specific performance of contract for sale.

¶73

The judgments and orders of the High Court and the trial Court are therefore liable to be set aside. The impugned orders are tJ"us set aside and the application for addition of parties filed at the instance of respondent Nos. I a;rd 4 to l l stands rejected. The appeal is thus a-llowed. We, however, make it clear that we have not decided in this judgment as to the title and possession of respondent Nos.l and 4 to I I of the suit property and all such questions are kept open in the event any approach is made either by the respondent Nos. I and 4 to I 1 or by the appellalt in any appropriate Court.

¶74

I 1 . Learned counsel for respondent No. l /plaintiff also relied on the order of this Court in Civil Revision petition No.1969 of 2023, wherein in Paras 23 and 24, this Court held as hereunder:

I Manu/SqO3t9/2005

SI(S J C.R.P.No.430^{of 2O21}

¶79

In Mumhai^{IntenldtionolAlrportPriaatc} Limited lrs' Regencg^{Conoention Centrednd Hotels Priaate} Llmltzd2, it^{was held as follows:}

¶80

A "necessary^{par!/ is a personwhoought to} have been^{joined as a party and in whose absenceno effective} decre! could^{be passedat all by the court' If a "necessary} part/ is not impleaded,^{the suit itself is liable to be disrnissed'} A "proper part/^{is a} Party^{who, though not a necessaryparty'} is a person^{whose presence would enablethe courtto} completely,^{effectively and adequately adjudicate uponall} matters in dispute^{in the suit, though he neednot be a person} in favour 6[^{61 again5t whom t]re decree is to be rnade' If a} person is not found^{to be a proper or necessary party' the court} has no^{jurisdiction to impleadhim, against the wishes of the} plaintiff. The fact^{that apersonislikely tosecure a} right/interest^{in a suit property, aJter the suit is decided} against the^{plaintift will not make suchpersona necessary} party or a proper^{party to the suit for specificperformance'}

¶81

In Gurrnit^{Singh Bhatiavs'Klrrl,zrKo,n't} Robinsons,^{the ApexCourt relying on the principlelaid down by} it in Xasturi^{(supra), held thata pendenti life purchaser is not a} necessary Party.

¶82

In the light^{of the aforesaid legal position' comingto the} facts of the^{presentcase, the petitioners herein are not parties to} the subject^{contractin O.S'No'4of 2013and they can agitate} their rights in^{ExecutionPetitions' As such' there is no}

¶83

'?^{(2oro) 7 scc 417} 3 (2020) 13 scc 773 F

sKs, C.R.P.No.43O of 2O21

¶88

-t {,) ;-l

¶89

irregularity in the order of the trial court and interference of this Court is not required

¶90

Resultantly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 1g.02.2O2I in I.A.No.66O of 20l9 in O.S.No.4 of 2OL3 passed by M Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad. No order as to costs.

¶91

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶92

Sd/. T.VIJAY KUMAR ASstsrANr RqsrgtrEffi sEcnorYS'FFtcER

¶93

//TRUE COPY//

¶94

¶95

The Vl Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad. ?. 9n. QQ^{to SRt. N V R RA..ly4 LAKSHM|, Advocare} [OPUC] 9. 9ne Q9^{tg SRt. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR,} novicate 1OF'uc1 4. Two CD Copies pr chw

.t!
'i:
i
!

HIGH COURT .

DATED: 2211212023

ORDER
I
CRP.No.430 of 2021
!

¶101

DISMISSING THE CRP
G
F,*'',

¶102