Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 716 (AP)

N. Ramulu v. A. Venkatesham

2003-06-10

V.ESWARAIAH

body2003
V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the similar orders dated 18-1-2003 made in I. A. No. 299 of 2002 in O. S. No. 435 of 1989 and in LA. No. 1266 of 2002 in O. S. No. 497 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District, L. B. Nagar, hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are common in both the Civil Revision Petitions and the contesting respondent, namely, M/s. Praga Tools officers Co-operative Housing Society is also the common party in both the cases. The petitioners filed Interlocutory applications under Order 1 Rule 10 read with 151 of CPC to permit them to implead as party defendants in the suit. The said applications were dismissed. Aggrieved, by the same they filed these two Civil Revision petitions. ( 3 ) AS the facts are common in both the Revision Petitions, it would suffice if the facts in CRP No. 690 of 2003 are referred to. The 1st respondent M/s. Praga Tools Officers co-operative Housing Society filed the suit o. S. No. 435 of 1989 against 20 defendants originally and subsequently added another 17 defendants for specific performance of four different Agreements of Sales said to have been entered into on 12-7-1985 for the purchase of the lands in question. When the suit was coming up for further evidence of defendants, the petitioners herein filed the LA. No. 299 of 2002 in O. S. No. 435 of 1989 to add them as defendants stating that they are the protected tenants and they subsequently became the absolute owners of the land in question and therefore they are proper and necessary parties to the suit and accordingly sought for impleading them as party respondents. One Sri a. Venkatesam also filed a similar suit in o. S. No. 497 of 1999 on the file of the ii Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga reddy District, L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad, against Syed Iftakar All and M/s. Praga Tools officers Co-operative Housing Society for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23-6-1983 and for permanent injunction in respect of the land admeasuring ac. 5. 20 guntas in S. No. 36 situated at Old boinapally, Ranga Reddy District. 5. 20 guntas in S. No. 36 situated at Old boinapally, Ranga Reddy District. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners by virtue of the inheritance of the protected tenancy rights from the father of the petitioners 1 to 3, N. Pochaiah in respect of Ac. 11. 12 guntas in S. No. 36 (part) situated at boinapally, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy district. After the death of N. Pochaiah, petitioners 1 to 3 succeeded for the said extent and the revenue authorities have already passed necessary orders. Petitioners 1 to 3 executed general power of attorney and also agreement of sale in favour of the 5th petitioner. The petitioners have already filed a petition before the revenue authorities for necessary implementation of the orders for issuance of the sale certificate in respect of the aforesaid land under Section 38 (A) of a. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the tenancy Act ). When the petitions are pending before the revenue authorities, the petitioners came to know that the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suits and in the said suits the petitioners are proper and necessary parties and if they are not impleaded as party defendants in the suit, the plaintiff may grab suit lands of the petitioners and the so-called vendors of the plaintiffs have no right to transfer the land to the plaintiffs in the suit. In fact, the petitioners herein are the owners and their interest is very much involved and therefore they are the proper and necessary parties for adjudication upon and to settle all the questions involved in the suit. It is further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer was already ordered to issue sale certificate vide his order dated 30-3-2002 and accordingly sale certificate was also issued on 3-4-2002 in favour of the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners have sufficient documentary evidence in their possession to prove that they are the titleholders of the land in question and if they are not impleaded, they will be put to heavy and irreparable loss. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs filed different counters in the said I. As. It is further stated that the petitioners have sufficient documentary evidence in their possession to prove that they are the titleholders of the land in question and if they are not impleaded, they will be put to heavy and irreparable loss. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs filed different counters in the said I. As. stating that the said petitions filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are not maintainable and the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit and their presence is not at all required for the final adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. The petitioners have no locus standi to implead them in the suit. It is further stated that the said petitions are barred by res judicata as a similar application in I. A. No. 1000 of 1998 was filed by one N. Rajaiah and others to implead in the suit claiming as tenants and the said application was dismissed by the court below on 11-12-1998. The father of the petitioners therein namely, Nallola balapochaiah was a party to the said petition in LA. No. 1000 of 1998 as petitioner No. 2 and therefore the present application filed by the sons of the Nallola Balapochaiah is not maintainable and the petitions are barred by res judicata. It is further stated that the petitioners are not the protected tenants as alleged by them. It is stated that the petitioners cannot question the suit agreement in any manner and the said applications are filed to delay and protract the litigation and therefore they are liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) THE Court below considered the rival contentions and point that arose for consideration as to whether the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the said suit proceedings and also proceedings in the I. As. in the suit. On behalf of the petitioners Exs. Al to A5 were marked. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the order of the r. D. O. dated 30-3-2002 in file No. G/2913/ 2001. Ex. A2 is the certified copy of Form vi (a) dated 3-4-2002 issued by the R. D. O. , chevella Division. Ex. A3 is the certified copy of the proceedings of the District collector and M. R. O. , Balanagar Mandal, rangareddy District in file No. B/1754/2002 dated 18-5-2002. Ex. A4 is the certified copy of P. T. Register. Ex. Ex. A2 is the certified copy of Form vi (a) dated 3-4-2002 issued by the R. D. O. , chevella Division. Ex. A3 is the certified copy of the proceedings of the District collector and M. R. O. , Balanagar Mandal, rangareddy District in file No. B/1754/2002 dated 18-5-2002. Ex. A4 is the certified copy of P. T. Register. Ex. A5 is the G. P. A dated 1-10-2001 executed by the petitioners 1 to 3 in favour of the 5th petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners mat they are the successors of the original tenant Nallola pochaiah. Golla Swamy, Nallola Pochaiah and Nallola Balaram are the original protected tenants in the said land in S. No. 36 and the petitioners are claiming as successors of the Nallola Pochaiah. The Nallola balapochaiah and three others filed i. A. No. 1000 of 1998 under Order 1 Rule 10 cpc, which was dismissed on 11-12-1998 and they are nothing to do with the petitioners as Nallola Balapochaiah is a different person from that of the father of the petitioners, namely, Nallola Pochaiah. ( 7 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial court held that in I. A. No. 1000 of 1998 nallola Balapochaiah was 2nd petitioner and there is nothing on record to show that Nallola Balapochaiah is different from Nallola Pochaiah. It is further observed that the father of Nallola Balapochaiah was Balaram and it is not known what is the name of the father of Nallola Pochaiah and therefore it is not possible to say that nallola Balapochaiah the 2nd petitioner in the said LA. No. 1000 of 1998 is different from the father of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein, namely, Nallola Pochaiah. It has been inferred that the petitioners 1 to 3 herein are the sons of the 2nd petitioner in i. A. No. 1000 of 1998 namely, Nallola balapochaiah. The said application was dismissed on 11-12-1998, which has become final and therefore the present applications filed for the similar request to implead them is not maintainable. It is further stated that even assuming that Nallola balapochaiah is a different from the Nallola pochaiah, the petitioners herein are not entitled to implead themselves as party defendants or the respondents in the suit/i. A. proceedings. It is further stated that even assuming that Nallola balapochaiah is a different from the Nallola pochaiah, the petitioners herein are not entitled to implead themselves as party defendants or the respondents in the suit/i. A. proceedings. It is stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 having succeeded the protected tenancy rights from the original protected tenant, who was their father namely, Nallola pochaiah, purchased the interest of the landholder also namely, Syed Iftakar Ali and also obtained sale certificate under section 38 (A) of the Tenancy Act and the said certificate was challenged before the joint Collector and the same is pending and therefore the validity and the legality of the said certificate cannot be decided by the trial Court as the said question is pending before the Joint Collector. It is further stated that the sale certificate was issued on 3-4-2002 and the application to implead them was filed on 8-2-2002 and therefore the said Exs. A1 and A2 which are subsequent to the filing of the applications cannot be looked into as the said certificates have not been issued as on the date of filing of the applications to implead the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is further observed that the provisions of the a. P. Tenancy Act are not applicable to service Inams Act in view of Section 102 of tenancy Act. It is stated that admittedly the suit lands are originally mam lands, but the validity of Ex. A2 can only be decided by the Tribunal constituted under Tenancy Act but not by the Civil Courts. ( 8 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the Trial Court made contradictory observations in conflict to each other. On one hand it has been stated that the issuance of the sales certificate is the subject- matter of the appeal pending before the joint Collector and at the same time on the other hand it is stated that the said certificates were not issued as on the date of the filing of the applications to make them as parties. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners never admitted that the suit lands are originally Inam lands. Without there being any evidence, whatsoever, the trial Court made an observation that the said suit lands are Inam lands. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners never admitted that the suit lands are originally Inam lands. Without there being any evidence, whatsoever, the trial Court made an observation that the said suit lands are Inam lands. It is further stated that Nallola Balapochaiah is different from Nallola Pochaiah, who was the father of the petitioners 1 to 3. It is stated that Nallola Balaram, Nallola pochaiah and Golla Swamy were the protected tenants. As per the proceedings ofthe M. R. O. , Balanagar in proceedings no. B/3423/93 dated 5-4-1994 it is evident to Sri Nallola Pochaiah died on 20-10-1983 and Nallola Balaram died on 26-1-1979 and the succession of the protected tenancy rights in respect of legal representatives of late N. Pochaiah and N. Balaram have been sanctioned by MRO vide proceedings no. B/4091/89 dated 23-12-1989 in favour of the successors of N. Pochaiah, N. Balapochaiah, N. Narasimha under section 40 (2) of Tenancy Act. Thus it is stated that Nallola Balapochaiah is different from Nallola Pochaiah. The Nallola ramulu, Nallola Mallesh, Nallola venkataswamy, the petitioners 1 to 3 herein are all the sons of Nallola Pochaiah. Nallola balapochaiah is a different person, who is s/o late N. Balaram. The legal heirs of n. Balaram are N. Rajaiah, N. Balapochaiah, n. Narayana, Smt. Yashoda and Narsimha. It is also stated that in the writ petition filed by Praga Tools Officers Co-operative housing Society in WP No. 3935 of 1991, they themselves described the petitioners herein as Respondents Nos. l, 11, 12 all are sons of late Nallola Pochaiah. Nallola balapochaiah was the respondent No. 7 therein. Therefore, it is clear that Nallola balapochaiah is different from the Nallola pochaiah, father of the petitioners. However, these are the issues ought to have been considered by the Trial Court, but without there being any evidence therein the trial Court assumed and presumed that nallola Balapochaiah is the father of the petitioners, which appears prima facie incorrect in the view of the aforesaid material facts. However, the Trial Court further proceeded that even assuming that the Nallola Balapochaiah is different from the father of the petitioner Nallola pochaiah, the Trial Court considered and held that Exs. However, the Trial Court further proceeded that even assuming that the Nallola Balapochaiah is different from the father of the petitioner Nallola pochaiah, the Trial Court considered and held that Exs. Al and A2 have not been issued on the date of filing of the petitions and therefore they cannot be relied on as the validity and legality of the said orders are to be decided by the Joint Collector, which have said to have been challenged by the 1st respondent herein. It is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Trial Court having admitted the documents Exs. Al and A2, which shows that the petitioners are the protected tenants failed to consider the said documents. Ex. A1 discloses that N. Pochaiah, father of the petitioners herein, n. Balaram and N. Swamy are the original protected tenants and after the death of n. Pochaiah the M. R. O. , Balanagar granted succession under Section 40 of the Tenancy act, in respect of the tenancy rights, in favour of the petitioners 1 to 3 as protected tenants. It is further stated that the Syed iftakar Ali pattedar transferred his rights in favour of the protected tenants i. e. , petitioners 1 to 3 and accordingly after making necessary enquiry and after issuing notice to all the concerned, the sale certificate under Section 38 (A) of the Tenancy Act has been issued in favour of the petitioners vide Ex. Al dated 30-3-2002. Under Ex. A2 it is stated that the Nallola Pochaiah is the protected tenant and the petitioners 1 to 3 herein who are the successors ofthe protected tenant paid the entire price to be payable to the landholder towards his interest. Under ex. A3 the mutation was also effected and the lands are shown in favour of the petitioners 1 to 3 in the revenue records. It is stated that in Ex. A4 P. T. Register of 1950, the tenants names that were mentioned were golla Swamy, Nallola Pochaiah, Nallola balaram. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the said syed Iftakarali, one of the defendant in both the suits entered in several agreement of sales with several persons even after filing of the suit. In fact, the other suit was filed by Venkatesam alleging that he has purchased Ac. 5. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the said syed Iftakarali, one of the defendant in both the suits entered in several agreement of sales with several persons even after filing of the suit. In fact, the other suit was filed by Venkatesam alleging that he has purchased Ac. 5. 20 guntas of the land from Syed Iftakar Ali under the agreement of sale dated 23-6-1983 for the specific performance of the suit. It is further stated that certain criminal proceedings are pending in Ex. B1 in C. C. No. 299 of 2002 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad against Syed Iftakarali and the said Iftakar remained ex pane in the suit and the present applications filed with inordinate delay are not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 10 ) UNDER Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC the court may at any stage of the proceedings add parties to the suit either as a plaintiff or the defendant whose presence before Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and to settle all questions involved in the suit. The question that arises as to whether the petitioners herein are the proper and necessary parties and whether they are entitled to be added as the defendants in the respective suits. If they are the proper and necessary parties they are entitled to be added as the defendants for effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Exs. Al to A4 prima facie discloses that the petitioners are not only the protected tenants, but also they have acquired the absolute rights having purchased the interest of the landholder also. The petitioners are the protected tenants. The dispute is whether the petitioners have purchased the rights of the landholder and whether it is valid or not and to decide these issues an appeal is said to have been filed before the Joint Collector. Even assuming that the petitioners are only the protected tenants, but not the absolute owners under the Tenancy Act. The lands in question cannot be alienated in favour of the 3rd parties under the Tenancy Act. Even assuming that the petitioners are only the protected tenants, but not the absolute owners under the Tenancy Act. The lands in question cannot be alienated in favour of the 3rd parties under the Tenancy Act. If the petitioners are not added as party defendants and if the said applications filed by them are thrown out, there is no other course except to filing separate suit not to inference their legal rights and therefore to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, which is one of the objects under Order 1 rule 10 CPC, the petitioners are necessarily to be added as proper parties to the suit. It cannot be said that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties. It is the case of the petitioners that vendors of the plaintiff have no right or authority in any manner to alienate the said lands in question. The documents filed by the petitioners essentially show that they are the necessary and proper parties to adjudicate upon the disputes in question. No doubt the suits being the specific performance of the agreement of sales and if the suits are decreed the rights of the petitioners will not be affected, but to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and to protect the interest of the petitioners, it is just and proper to add the petitioners herein as the defendants. It is stated by the petitioners that they are the protected tenants and they have the right to purchase the land under Section 38 (A) of tenancy Act. The landlord cannot sell the said lands without giving the option to purchase the same in favour of the protected tenants. It is stated that the landholder sold away his rights in favour of the protected tenants and thus the protected tenants have become absolute owners of the sujt property in question having obtained certificate of ownership under Section 38 (A) of the tenancy Act. Thus it is stated that under the tenancy Act, there is a prohibition for alienation of the interest of the landholder and therefore the agreements of the sales are illegal and unsustainable. It is not desirable for this Court to express any opinion on merits with regard to the detailed contentions. Thus it is stated that under the tenancy Act, there is a prohibition for alienation of the interest of the landholder and therefore the agreements of the sales are illegal and unsustainable. It is not desirable for this Court to express any opinion on merits with regard to the detailed contentions. The Trial Court ought to have considered all these issues at the time of the trial of the suit, but it cannot be said that the petitioners herein are not proper and necessary parties. Even assuming that the 38 (A) certificate of the Tenancy Act is going to be set aside by the. Joint Collector, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no right as, it is their case, that they are the protected tenants under Section 38 (E ). It is further stated that the protected tenants have become absolute owners, and however they have already purchased the interest of the landholder and after recording the evidence and making necessary enquiry, 38 (A) certificate i. e. , ownership certificate was also issued and their names have been mutated in the revenue records. Merely because there is a pleading that such lands are the Inam lands, the Trial Court without there being any evidence, whatsoever, observed that the said lands are admittedly inam lands. The petitioners never admitted that the said suit lands are the Iham lands. The Trial Court without dealing with the relevant contentions and the provisions of the Tenancy Act erroneously dismissed the application of the petitioners. The petitioners herein are not the parties to the earlier Interim Application No. 1000 of 1998, which was dismissed on 11-12-1998. The 2nd petitioner therein Nallola Balapochaiah is not the father of the petitioners herein and therefore the said order do not operate as res judicata in the present applications filed by them. Under Section 38 (D) of the Tenancy act the landholders are prohibited from alienating the tenancy lands to the 3rd parties. If the landholder intends to sell the land he must give notice in writing of his intention to the protected tenants. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. All these questions have necessarily to be considered in the suits filed by the plaintiffs. The first offer must be given to the protected tenant. It is only when the protected tenant does not exercise the right to purchase, the landholder could sell the land to third parties. All these questions have necessarily to be considered in the suits filed by the plaintiffs. Applications of the petitioners cannot be thrown out at the threshold without adding them as parties. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the orders of the Trial Court are set aside and the applications filed by the petitioners to add them as parties to the suit and interlocutory applications are allowed and the Civil petitions allowed. No order as to costs.