Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 100 (AP)

S. D. Samiulla v. K. L. Narayana

2012-01-30

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : The petitioners who are third parties to O.S.No.172 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale against the original defendant No.1, in whose place respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein-his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 and 3, filed I.A.No.457 of 2010 seeking their impleadment as defendant Nos.4 to 6. 2. The petitioners pleaded that they have purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 23.07.2007, from one N.Srinivasa Raju, to whom defendant No.2 was stated to have sold the property during the pendency of the suit. The Court below has rejected their application for impleadment on the ground that the petitioners who purchased the property during the pendency of the suit filed for specific performance of agreement of sale are not entitled to come on record as the transaction is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. 3. At the hearing, Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Pallapu Mohanarao (died) by LRs V. Thammisetty Subba Rao ( 2011(6) ALD 324 ), to buttress his submission that the petitioners who are the subsequent purchasers are entitled to come on record. 4. I have carefully considered this judgment and I find that the same does not assist the petitioners. In the said case, the children and the wife of the defendant, against whom the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, filed an application for their impleadment in the suit. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. This Court has interfered with the order passed by the trial Court and allowed the application of the family members of the defendant by holding that as it was pleaded by them that the mill in respect of which the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale was filed was a joint family property headed by the original defendant and that as there were allegations of collusion between the original defendant and the plaintiff, it was necessary that the entire lis among the parties shall be adjudicated in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 5. 5. The Supreme Court inMIA Pvt Ltd V. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ( 2010(5) ALD 24 (SC)), has examined the scope of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that if a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him against the wishes of the plaintiff and that, in a suit for specific performance, only the issues relating to specific performance i.e., whether the defendant executed the agreement/contract and whether such contract should be specifically enforced or not would arise and that the scope of the suit for specific performance cannot be widened at the instance of the third parties, unless the Court feels that their presence is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the above-mentioned issues arising in the suit. 6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are claiming right over the suit schedule property on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in their favour during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, their rights over the suit schedule property depend upon the liability of defendant Nos.2 and 3 to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1. For deciding this issue, the presence of the petitioners is not at all necessary. If the petitioners have any independent claim against defendant No.2 and his vendor, they are entitled to agitate such rights independently. 7. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 8. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.6896 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.