Dismissed

Smt.S.Krishnamma v. S.Rajender Reddy

Telangana HC12 Sept 2024CRP/3914/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court revisited two civil revisions challenging orders permitting the impleadment of revenue authorities and amendment of prayer in a suit for title. Rejecting claims of limitation, the Court held the amendment did not change the suit nature and that the authorities were necessary parties for effective adjudication of the validity of a contested gift deed.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Smt.S.Krishnamma Vs S.Rajender Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[3300 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTETVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3914 OF 2023 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 27 OF 2024

¶7

C.R.P.No. 3914 of 2023

¶8

Petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of India, against the order dated 0-5.12.2023 passedinl.A.No.318 of 2023 ino.S.No. 14Bof io22 onthefileof ihe Courl of the Senior Civil Judge, at Kalwakurthy.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. S. Krishnamma, W/o. Late Sri Venkat Reddy, aged 67 years, Occ. Agricultural, Rr/o. Ethmathpur Viilage, Tadoor Mand6i, Nigarkarnoot riistrLt, State of Telangana.

¶11

S. Rajeswar Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Venkat Reddy, aqed 39 vears. Occ. Agricultu_ral/Business, R/o. Ethmathpur Village, Tad<ior I/'andal, N'agarkarnool District, State of Telangana.

¶12

...Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants

¶13

AND

¶14

'i S. Rajender_F"q9.y, S/o. Late. Sudhakar Reddy, aged 28 years, Occ. Agricultural, Rl/o. Ethmathpur Village, Tadoor Mandal, Iiagarkarriool District, State of Telangana.

¶15

... RespondenUpetitioner/plaintiff

¶16

S.. Bachi Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Venkat Reddy aged 39 years, Occ. Agricultural, Rl/o Ethmathpur virrage, Tadoor Mandar, Nagarkainoor District," state of Telangana.

¶17

The District Collector, Nagarkarnool District, State of Telangana

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkarnool District, State of Telangana

¶19

Tte Tahsildar, Tadoor Mandal, Nagarkamool District, State of Telangana (Respondent No.2 to 5 are not necesiary parties in the above CRp)

¶20

... Respondents/Proposed Defendants

¶21

¶22

,.^{'lA NO: 'l OF 2023}

¶23

Petition under Section^'l 5'1 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.S.No.148 12022 on the file oi the senior civil Judge, Kalwakurthy pending disposal of the civil Revision petition in the interest of justice.

¶24

C.R.P.No. 27 of 2024

¶25

Petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of lndia, against the order dated 0^5.12.2023 passed in t.A.No. 319 of 2023 in o.s.No. 148 or io22 on ilre fite oiine Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Kalwakurthy.

¶26

Between:

¶27

Smt. S. Krishnamma, Wo Late Sri Venkat Reddy aoed 67 years. Occ: Agricult-ural, Fi./o. Ethmathpur viilage, Tadoor Mandir, N-agarkarriooi oisirtt, State of Telangana.

¶28

S. Rajeswar Reddy, S/o. _Late^{Sri Venkat Reddy aged 39 years,Occ} Agricultural/Business. R/o. Ethmathpur Village, Tado6r Mandal, Nagarkarnool District, State of Telangana

¶29

...Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants

¶30

AND

¶31

1 S. .Rajender_Re{dy, S/o. Late Sudhakar Reddy, aged 28 years, Occ Agricultural, Rl/o Ethmathpur Village, Tadoor Mandat, tiagariarnbol Di.tri;t, State of Telangana.

¶32

... RespondenUpetitioner/plaintiff

¶33

2 S Bachi Reddy, S/o Late Sri Venkat_ Reddy aged 39 years, Occ Agricultural, Fl/o. Ethmathpur Virrage, Tadoor Mandar, Nigarkarhoor Distiict: s-tat,-. ;i Telangana.

¶34

3 The District Collector, Nagarkarnool District, State of Telangana

¶35

4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkarnool District, State of Telangana

¶36

5 The Tahsildar,, Tadoor Mandal, Nagarkarnool District, State of Telanoana (Respondent No.2 to 5 are not necesdary parties in the dbove bRp)^{- -} "-^-

¶37

...Respondents/proposed Defendants

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶39

Petition under section 15'l of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all. further proceedings in o.S.No.14Bl2022 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy pending disposal of the civil Revision petition in the interest of^justice.

¶40

¶41

nsel for Petitioners (in both) : Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu

¶42

Counsel for Respondent No.1 (in both) : Sri A.P. Suresh Ram

¶43

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶44

¶45

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶47

CIVIT REVISION PETITION No.3914 of 2o23

¶48

And

¶49

CML REVISION PETITION No.27 of 2024

¶50

COMMON ORDER:

¶51

These revisions emanate from the order dated 05.12.2023^passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, in^I.A.No.318 of 2023,^and order of even date in I.A.No.319 of^{2023, in O.S.No.148 of 2022.}

¶52

I.A.No.318 of 2023 was flled praying the Court to implead proposed respondents 3 to 6 as defendants 3 to 6 in the suit. Likewise, I.A.No.319 of 2023^{was Iiled praying to permit the plaintiff to amendthe} prayer in the plaint. By the impugned orders, the Trial Court allowed the applications. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants I and² are before this Court with^{these revisions,} raising several^{grounds. For} the sake of convenience, the^parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

¶53

Heard Mr. Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/ plain tiff; and Mr. A.P. Suresh Ram, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/defendants I and 2.

¶54

The plaintiff filed thc suit OS No. 148 of 2022 for declaration of title and recoverv of possession of suit schedule property. It is the case !^{of the plaintift rhat defendantNo.2and one S. Bachi Reddy (proposed} t defendant No.3) played criminal mischief on the deceased (S.

¶55

¶56

Anthamma)^{by forging a SadaBainama (un-registeredGift Deed)alleged} to have^{been exccutedby the deceasedAnthamma on 26'12'i983and} got the said^{unregistered Gift Deed validatedin the year 1994 through} proceedings^{dated 02'07'1994 issued by the Tahsildar (proposed} defendant^{No.4), and thereforethe Tahsildar' the Revenue Divisional} Officer^{(proposed defendant No'S)' and the DistrictCollector (proposed} defendant^{No.6) are proper and necessary parties to the suit and prayed} the Court^{to add them as defendant Nos'3to 6' respectively'The} plaintiff^{also challenged the legality of the unregisteredGift Deed'}

¶57

The trial^{Court, by separate orders dated05 '12 '2023 'allowed} both the^{applications'Challenging the same'the defendants 1 arrd 2} filed the^{present revisionpetltlons'}

¶58

The crux^{of the contentionof defendants is that the plaintiff had} knowledge^{of contested Sada Bainama (unregistered Gift Deed) in the} year 2ol4^{itself, as the pleadings in the affidavit{iled in support of} 1.A.No.318^{of 2023 woul<ldisciose thestatement of Plaintiff whereinhe} stated^{that he had brought to the notice of his previous counselabout} the alleged^{forged SadaBainama /unregistered Gift Deed buthis} counsel^{failed to challenge the forged Sada Bainama' The defendants} therefore^{contend that the plaintiff havingknowledgeof the Sada} Bainama,^{layingchallengeto the same after 3O years' is hit by Article} 58 of^{Limitation Act'}

¶59

The defendants^{aiso contend that the trial Court ought to have} considered the^{writtenargumentsof defendants, inview of the} judgment in G. Jaya Rao v. State of^{A.P. Land Reforms,} Srikakulamr,^{howeverthe trial Court failed to consider the same, ald} therefore the^{impugnedordersdated 05.12.2023 passed inboth} lnterlocutory^{Applications are bad in law, and the same are liable to be} set aside.

¶60

Learned counsel^{for the defendants relied on the judgmentof the} Hon' bte Supreme^{Court in MumbaiInternational Airport Prrt. Ltd- v.} Regency Convention^{Centre& Hotels Rft. Ltd2; Karuppaswamyv.} C. RamamurthY3.

¶61

In Regency Convention^{(2 supra|, wherein there was a contest} to adding a^{party on the groundthat the proposed party thereinwas} neither proper nor^necessary to^{the suit, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt} held that if a^{person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the} Court has no^{jurisdictionto impleadhim againstthe wishes of the} plaintiff, and the fact^{that a personis likely to secure a right/interestin} a suit property, after^{the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not} make such person a^{necessaryparty or a properparty to the suit for} specillc performance.

¶62

'zoo3 111^{aLt tzz}

¶63

'lrR^{2o1o sc atog}

¶64

'ntR^{1993sc 23za}

g. In Karuppaswamy^{(3 suPral, the subject matter was with regard} to the limitation^{and the date from which it deserves computation.It} wasobservedbytheHon'blesupremeCourtatparagraph9asfollows:

¶69

"9.^{Thus in ouropinionthe course set out in Mushis case (AlR 1983 SC} 271) is attracted^{to the instant case since the HighCourt hasfound that} the^{plaintiff-respondenthad acted in goodfaith and had committed} mistake in^{thatframe of mind. Munshi's case' in our view, should clear} the way in^{favour of the} Plaintiff-respondent,^{endingin dismissalof this} appeal."

¶70

'10. .."..... ln contrast, in Rasetty Ratya^{lakshmammav' Ramaiuru} Kanniah, AIR^{1978 Andh Pra 279, the mistake was found to have} occurred in^{good faith and the implement of this legal representatives} was allowed^{even afterthe expiry of the limitation for filing suit' The} institution^{of the suit was rightly heldthereinto be not void ab initio"'}

¶71

iO. Learned^{counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent relied on the} judgment of the Hon' ble^{Supreme Court in Life Insurance} Corporation of^{India v. SanjeevBuilders Private Limiteda, and also} thejudgmentofthisCourtinMothkupallyNarsimhuluv.Adimalla Susheelas.

¶72

The Hon'ble^{Supremc Court in Sanjeev Builders (4 supral held} as fol1ou,s:

¶73

"(i)^{Order ll Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure operates as a baragainsta} subsequent suit if^{the requisite conditionsfor application thereofare} satisfied and the^{fieldof amendmentof pleadingsfalls far beyond its} purview. The^plea of^{amendmentbeing barred under Order ll Rule2 Code} of Civil Procedure^{is thus, misconceived and hence negative'}

¶74

oltR zo22 sc q256 'cRP^{No.5o2 of zo23}

¶75

¶76

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or preiudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order Vl Rule^.i7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶77

(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed

¶78

(i)

¶79

(ii) To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdrawy any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

¶80

¶81

(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed un less

¶82

(i)

¶83

(ii) The amendment changes the nature of the suit

¶84

(vi) where the amendment would enable the court to pinpointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

¶85

(vii) where the amendment merely sought to inlroduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

¶86

(x) where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, forein to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed-

¶87

¶88

I I

¶89

(xi) ...... Equally, where the amendment is necessary for^the court to effectively adiudicate on the main issues^{in controversy} between the^parties, the amendment should be^allowed.

¶90

It may be noted that the plaintiff filed I.A.No.318^of 2023^under Order I Rule 1O(2) of Code of Civil Procedure^{(CPC)for adding partiesto} the suit; and also filed 1.A.No.319 of 2023^{underOrder6Rule 17 of CPC} for amendment of prayer in the suit. It is therefore relevant^{to refer to} the said provisions which read as follows:

¶91

order 1 Rule 10(2):

¶92

(2) Court may strike out or add parties:- The Court may at any stage of^the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either^party, and^on such terms as may appear to the Court to be iust,^{order that thename of} any party improperly^joined, whether as^plaintiff or^{defendant,be struck} out, and that the name, of any^person who ought to^{have been joined,} whether as plaintiff or defendant, or^{whose presence beforethe Court may} be necessary in order to enable the Court^{effectuallyand comPletelyto} adjudicate upon and settle all the^{questions involved in the suit, be added.}

¶93

Order 6 Rule 17:

¶94

(17) Amendment of Pleadings:-The Court may at any stage of^the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his^pleadings in^such manner and on such terms as may be iust,^{and all such amendmentsshall} be made as may be necessary for the^{purpose of determining thereal} questions in controversy between the^parties: Provided that^{no application} for amendment shall be allowed after the trial^{has commenced, unlessthe} Court comes to the conclusion that an spite of due diligence,^{the party} could not have raised the matter before the^{commencement of trial.}

¶95

It is to be noted that in the instant^{case the pleading of the} plaintiff is that the unregistered Gift Deed dated 26.12.1983 is^forged and fake document brought into existence with ulterior motive,^{and that}

the saicl^{document was got validated in the year 1994 throughsome} alleged^{proceeclings issued by the proposed defendant No'6 on} O2.O7.1994^{and therefore sought to implead the proposeddefendants 3} Lo 6 as dcfendants^{to thc suit lor effective determinationof the suit' and} accordingly^{sought for zrmendment of the prayer as u'ell' The only} ground sought^{to be urged by the defendants1 and 2 is that the} plaintiff is in^{the know of the documentprior to the suit' However' it is} to be noted^{that at the sametime it is the plea of the plaintiff that he} had informed^{his previous counsel aboutthe unregistered Gift Deed'At} this^{juncture,it rnay be noted that the observations of the District Court} while dismissing^{the CMANo' 13 of 2Ol4 liled by the plaintiff' at} paragraph 9^{regardingtrx.P1-WillDeed'77 '06'20O7and Gift Deed dated} Ex.P1 is^{the question of fact to be considered only during the courseof} trial; and^{expresseddoubt on validationby revenue authorities since} such^{power under the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act'} 1971 is^{applicableonly to transactionslike agreementof sale and} unregistered^{sale deed etc, but not to a gift deedgovernedunder} Transfer of^{PropertyAct, and that these aspects will be decidedduring} the course of^trial.

¶101

It may^{be notedthat the proposeddefendants are proper parties} to testify with^{regard to the validationof unregisteredGift Deed and} consequent^{mutationproceedings andwhether such proceedingswere} with notice or^{withoutnotice to late S Anthammaand rvhether section}

¶102

¶103

¶104

5A and the^{Rulesof TelanganaRights in I-and and Pattadar Passbooks} \ Act, 1971, are^{contravened.These are factual aspects that can be} decided during^{the course of trial. It is to be noted that merelybecause} the I.As are filed at^{the stage of final argumentsdoes not necessarily} entail dismissal of^{the applications,for, if that is so, the purport of} Order 1 Rule^{1O(2) itselfbecomes defunct.It is to be noted that the} Court, with regard to^{facts of a given case, has to exercisejudicious} discretion, and^{the Court cannot either allow or dismissas a matter of} course, to add^parties at any^{stage of proceedings for effectual} adjudication of^the suit.^{The phrase *at ang stage of proccedings"is} significant and^{beset with judiciousdiscrction whileimpleading or} dropping a^{partyfor effectualadjudication.}

¶105

Coming to^{the application in LA.No.3 i9 of 2023,which is for} amendment of^{prayer, chalienging the unregistered Gift Deeddated} 26.12.1983 as null^{and void} and^{not bindingon the plaintiff on the} ground of alleged forgery and contravention of^{Section5A read with} Rule 22 of the^{Act, beingwithout notice.}

¶106

Considering^{the judgments relied on by both the learned counsel,} this Court is of the^view that the^judgment of the^{Hon'bleSupreme} Court in Sanjeev Builders⁽⁵ supral is^{relevantto the facts of the} present case, for,^{the amendment of prayer wouldin no way altersthe} nature of the suit^{itself, as the plaintiffis still seekingdeclaration of title} and possession,^{and the plaintiffs knowledge of unregistered GiftDeed} dated 26.12.19a3^{and agitatingthe same is not a time-barredcauseof}

¶107

¶108

action but continuous^{ancl therefore by seekingamendmentof prayer'} the plaintiff is^{not ir-rtroducing a time-barredcause,as the causeof} action is still^{the samewhich is with regard to the title being claimed} based on the^{allegedunregisteredGift Deed dated 26.12.1983and its} subsequent^{validation by the revenue authorities in the year1994'}

¶109

In that^vieu. of^{the matter, this courtdoesnot hnd any illegality} in atlowing I.A.No.3l9^{of 2023 therebypermittingto amend the prayer'}

¶110

With regard to^{the addition of proposed defendants3 to 6' it is} relevant to note^{lhat the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Anil KumarSingh} v. Shivnath Mishra6^{observedwith regard to Order tRule1O(2)as} follou's

¶111

"By operation^{of the above-quotedrule thoughthe court may have} power to strike out the name^{of a party impropeily} ioined^{or add a party} either on application^{or withoutapPlicationof either party, but the} condition^{precedentis that the court must be satisfiedthat the} presence of the party to be^{added,would be necessaryin order to} enable the court^{to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and} settle all^{questions involvedin the suit.To bring a person as party-} defendant^{is not a substantive rightbut one of procedure and the court} has discretion^{in its proper exercise. The objectof the ruleis to bring} on record all the^{persons whoareparties to the dispute relating to the} subiect matter^{so that the disputemay be determinedin their presence} at the same^{timewithout any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid} multiplicity of Proceedings."

¶112

Though the^{plaintiff is dominuslitus,it is the duty of the Courtto} ensure that. if, for^{decidingthe real matter in dispute,a personis} necessary^party, the^{court can order such persons to be impleaded-} Merely because the^{plaintiff does notchooseto implead a person, is} not sufficient for^{rejection of an application for being impleaded'}

lrsss) :^{scc rqz}

\ \

i I

Furthermore, it is not the case of revision^{petitioners/defendants} I and 2 that the^proposed defendants are not^proper or necessary parties to the suit, or that the scope of the suit is enlarged or that the questions not involved in the suit are being decided. It is to be noted that the ground urged by the plaintiff is that the alleged forged document dated 26. 12.1983 and the consequential proceedings in the year L984 under the Act are without notice as mandated under Section 5A read u,ith Rule 22 of the Act, and therefore the proposed defendants are proper and necessary parties. It is also to be noted that while allowing the impugned I.As., the trial Court has observed that admittedly the impleadment application was filed at the fag end of main suit proceedings however the same cannot be thrown out and the trial Court inclined to give opportunity to the plaintiff to avoid multiplicity of litigation; and' further with regard to amendment of prayer, the defendants can file additional written statement against the new amended contentions in the plaint. Furthermore, the proposed defendants are not added in the capacitlr of plaintiffs or share-holders of the suit property, and they are the authorities who validated the disputed unregistered Gift Deed dated 26.12.1983 allegedly without notice and in contravention of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, and therefore their addition is innocuous in nature and could only aid in effectual adjudication of the suit, i[ not anything more; and as the trial Court rightly observed, the defendants can rebut the amendment by l-rling additional written statement if they so choose. In

¶119

¶120

thatviewofthematter,girrenthefactsoftheCaSe,thisCourtdoesnot find any .judicial^{improprictyin the discretion exercisedby the trial} Court in atlowing^{the impugned applications'}

¶121

Having^{considered the rival contentions, and perusing the} material on^{record, and the judgments relied on by both the learned} counsel in both^{the revision petitions,this Court does not find} reasonablcgroundtointerferewiththeordersofthetrialCourtand thereforc the revisiorr^{petitionsare liable to be dismissed'}

¶122