Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1102 (AP)

Khader Ali Khan v. Sai Baba

2005-11-22

N.V.RAMANA

body2005
( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. is directed against the order dated 24-11 -2004, passed by the I Additional rent Controller, Hyderabad, dismissing the application in I. A. No. 555 of 2004 in r. C. No. 130 of 2004, filed by the petitioners to implead them as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the RC. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are absolute owners of the property, the same having been purchased by them under registered sale deed dated 9-5-2001 from their vendors, namely Smt. Usha Kiran, Smt. Neela Devi and Smt. Umita Kiran, who were gifted the same by Smt. Shobha Devi, mother of respondent No. 1. He submitted that the vendors of the petitioners, respondent No. 1 and his mother colluded and obtained a void decree from the Court of the II Senior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O. S. No. 657 of 1998 dated 3-9-1999 and in pursuance thereof, obtained sale deed dated 25-2-2002. When respondent No. 2 was evicted in pursuance of the said decree in e. P. No. 93 of 1999, he filed C. R. P. No. 3423 of 2002, which along with C. R. P. No. 2166 of 2002, was allowed. In pursuance thereof, respondent No. 2 was reinducted into possession. He submitted that the decree in o. S. No. 657 of 1998 and the sale deed obtained by respondent No. 1 in pursuance thereof, is not binding on the petitioners. On the basis of the said sale deed dated 25-2-2002, respondent No. 1 filed R. C. against respondent No. 2, father of the petitioners, seeking his eviction from the premises, while the petitioners filed suit in O. S. No. 2909 of 2004 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, to declare that they are owners of the property. He thus submitted that they having purchased the property covered underthe R. C. proceedings from their vendors, are proper and necessary parties, and the Rent Controller committed an error in dismissing the same. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for respondent no. He thus submitted that they having purchased the property covered underthe R. C. proceedings from their vendors, are proper and necessary parties, and the Rent Controller committed an error in dismissing the same. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contended that as on 9-5-2001, when the petitioners are said to have purchased the property, their vendors had no right or title to the property, nor were they competent to enter into sale transaction. The gift deed, on the basis of which, the vendors of the petitioners sold the property to them, was cancelled vide decree in O. S. No. 657 of 1998, dated 3-9-1999. The remedy of the petitioners was to assail the said order before a higher Court, which they did not do, and as such, the said decree has become final. There is no fraud played by respondent No. 1 in obtaining the decree. He submitted that respondent No. 2 being the tenant of respondent No. 1 and not of the petitioners, they have no right to get impleaded in the r. C. proceedings, initiated by respondent no. 1 against respondent No. 2. He thus submitted that no interference is called for by this Court in C. R. P. , and the same be dismissed. ( 5 ) I find no reason whatsoeverto interfere with the order under revision. Admittedly, the petitioners are claiming to have purchased the property from their vendors, who were said to have been gifted the property under gift deed dated 12-12-1996, which was cancelled by reason of decree passed in o. S. No. 657 of 1998, dated 3-9-1999 by the ii Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. In execution thereof, respondent no. 1 obtained sale deed dated 25-2-2002 from the Court in respect of the property. Based on the same, respondent No. 1 claiming to have become the owner of the property, initiated the eviction proceedings in R. C. No. 130 of 2004 against respondent No. 2, who is no other than the father of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners are seeking to implead them in the eviction proceedings on the ground that they are owners of the property. Whether the petitioners or respondent No. 1 have title to the property by reason of the documents in their possession, cannot be decided in rent control proceedings. Admittedly, the petitioners are seeking to implead them in the eviction proceedings on the ground that they are owners of the property. Whether the petitioners or respondent No. 1 have title to the property by reason of the documents in their possession, cannot be decided in rent control proceedings. The petitioners, admittedly, have filed suit in O. S. No. 2909 of 2004 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, to declare that they are owners of the property. Unless they are declared as owners of the property in the suit filed by them, they cannot be impleaded as party to the eviction proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order under revision, refusing to implead the petitioners as party respondents to the rent control proceedings, pending between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. There is no merit in the C. R. P. , and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.