Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1058 (AP)

M. B. Lakshmi v. M. R. Brahmaji Rao

2022-10-18

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2022
ORDER : Third parties to a suit, whose prayer for impleadment in the suit having been negatived by the trial Court, have come up with this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff, respondent No.2 herein is the defendant and respondent No.3 herein is one of the third parties out of the three. The order impugned is that of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in I.A.No.953 of 2017 in O.S.No.30 of 2016 passed on 23.10.2018. 3. O.S.No.30 of 2016 is a suit for recovery of possession of lease hold property and for recovery of rent or damages. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as house bearing Door No.2-148 situated in 145 square yards of site in Bhatnavilli Village of Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. In the plaint, it is alleged that the defendant owned this property and for a valid consideration of Rs.5,20,000/- and by executing a regular registered sale deed on 11.10.2010 it was sold in favour of the plaintiff and in the sale deed, a recital is there about warranty of title and possession of the property was also delivered to the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 18.07.2011 under a registered lease deed the plaintiff had let out the premises to the defendant for a period of one year on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- payable by 18th of every month with a condition of payment of 18% interest in the event of default in payment of rent. Even after expiry of the lease period, the defendant remained as a tenant holding over and he was paying rents upto 17.07.2013 and committed default thereafter. Despite notice for payment of arrears of rent and for vacating the premises, there was no response and therefore, the suit. It is also mentioned that the defendant gave a false information to police on 15.12.2015 and the police searched the premises of the house of the plaintiff and they took away all the original documents. For the notice of the plaintiff, the defendant gave a reply with false allegations. 4. As against that, the sole defendant in the suit filed his written statement. He pleaded that the plaintiff obtained sale deed from him under force and threat of life. That the defendant had no right to execute sale deed and rent deed in favour of the plaintiff. 4. As against that, the sole defendant in the suit filed his written statement. He pleaded that the plaintiff obtained sale deed from him under force and threat of life. That the defendant had no right to execute sale deed and rent deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that the disputed property originally belonged to the Government and on 05.11.1971 the Government issued a house site patta in favour of Smt. G.Gangayama. Initially, she constructed a thatched house and thereafter she constructed a RCC building in it. Thereafter, she died survived by four children including the defendant. With the consent of his siblings, this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. That the plaintiff is indulging in private money lending business, the nephew of the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and it was in that context, the plaintiff obtained signatures on blank pronotes from the family members. Since the plaintiff obtained sale deed and lease deed under force, complaint to police was given and Crime No.472 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 384 and 508 read with 34 of I.P.C. was registered by Amalapuram Police. For all these reasons, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Issues in the suit were settled and trial commenced and evidence on both sides was recorded. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the siblings of the defendant, who are three in number, filed I.A.No.953 of 2017in O.S.No.30 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The prayer in the said petition is extracted here: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners-3rd parties pray to implead them as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit directing the plaintiff to make necessary consequential amendments to the plaint as suggested below and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Amendments to be made: 1. Add the names of petitioners as defendants 3 to 4 in the short cause title para of the plaint. 2. Add the names and addresses of the petitioners as defendants 3 to 4 in the long cause title para of the plaint.” 6. Amendments to be made: 1. Add the names of petitioners as defendants 3 to 4 in the short cause title para of the plaint. 2. Add the names and addresses of the petitioners as defendants 3 to 4 in the long cause title para of the plaint.” 6. The 1st petitioner in that I.A.No.953 of 2017 filed a sworn affidavit in support of the petition wherein he reiterated the contents of the written statement of defendant and then it is stated that the property belonged to these petitioners and the defendant, but the plaintiff and the defendant colluded together and brought into existence of fictitious sale deed and the defendant had no right to sell the property. That the petitioners have interest in the subject matter of the suit and they are the rightful owners of the plaint schedule property and therefore, they are necessary parties. It was on such averments, they sought for their impleadment. The defendant did not put in any contest as against that application. However, the plaintiff who was shown as 1st respondent in that application, filed a counter stating that Ex.A.1 filed in the suit is a registered lease deed executed by the defendant in the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the prayer for impleadment on part of the siblings of the defendant at the stage of the arguments in the suit is not maintainable and is filed to protract the litigation. It is further stated that the patta allegedly available with the petitioners pertain to a different property and in the suit the defendant was making a claim over the suit schedule property under a registered gift deed dated 31.08.2004 said to have been executed by the wife of the defendant in favour of the defendant. That the plaintiff has been paying tax for the plaint schedule property from the date of obtaining sale deed on 11.10.2010. The story narrated in the petition is false and created. It is then stated that if the impleading petitioners have got any rights over property, their remedy is in filing a separate suit against his brother and not impleadment in the suit. They cannot compel the plaintiff to implead them in a suit filed by the plaintiff. With a view to squat on the property, the defendant got this petition filed. With these reasons, they sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. They cannot compel the plaintiff to implead them in a suit filed by the plaintiff. With a view to squat on the property, the defendant got this petition filed. With these reasons, they sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Learned trial Court enquired into the matter, considered the submissions on both sides and dismissed the petition assigning the following reasons, which are extracted here: “The plaintiff has filed the present suit for relief of arrears of rent and eviction against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant sold the property to him under registered sale deed dated 11.10.2010 and subsequently the defendant took the plaint schedule property on lease and executed registered lease deed and took possession of the same. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioners that the plaint schedule property originally belong to Gosangi Gangayamma who got the same by virtue of a patta issued by the government. In support of their contention they filed patta along with this petition. On perusal of the said document it appears that the boundaries and extent of the alleged patta schedule property and the plaint schedule property are different. The present petition is filed by the petitioners when the suit is at arguments stage. If at all the petitioners have got any rights their remedy is to file another suit. The plaintiff has a discretion to put his case in a manner he likes and should not be forcibly involved into controversies with persons whom he does not wish to implead. He takes the risk of not impleading a particular party. In the present case on hand the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of leasehold between him and the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property failing which he will loose his case. The plaintiff is the best judge of his own interest and cannot be compelled to implead some persons against whom he is not claiming any relief. There are no bona fides and merits in the petition filed by the petitioners and the petition is filed at fag end of the suit to drag on the matter.” 8. The plaintiff is the best judge of his own interest and cannot be compelled to implead some persons against whom he is not claiming any relief. There are no bona fides and merits in the petition filed by the petitioners and the petition is filed at fag end of the suit to drag on the matter.” 8. Aggrieved of it, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before the learned trial Court have filed this revision stating that the defendant was not defending the suit properly as he has nothing to do with the property and the plaintiff somehow wanted to evict the defendant so that he could evict the proposed parties also from the suit schedule property under the guise of such a decree. Learned trial Court failed to notice this and failed to notice that their impleadment would not cause prejudice to the plaintiff and their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of litigation. With these reasons, they sought to upset the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submitted that the impleading petitioners are necessary parties to the suit since their valuable and substantive rights are involved over the subject matter of the suit. Their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of litigation. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that it is at the belated stage of suit they have come up with this application for impleadment and that would protract the litigation and the inter se dispute among these impleading petitioners and the defendant has nothing to do with the dispute involved in the suit and the order of the trial Court is perfect on facts and law and does not require any interference. 10. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and on considering the material on record and the grounds urged in this revision, the point that falls for consideration is: “In a suit between the landlord and tenant for ejection and recovery of arrears whether third parties could be impleaded at the stage of arguments in the suit and whether the impugned order caused miscarriage of justice requiring interference? 11. Point: That the suit is at the stage of arguments is undisputed before this Court. According to the revision petitioners, in the sworn affidavit filed before the trial Court, they are also in possession of the property. 11. Point: That the suit is at the stage of arguments is undisputed before this Court. According to the revision petitioners, in the sworn affidavit filed before the trial Court, they are also in possession of the property. If that is considered as correct, it may taken that they have full knowledge of the litigation that has been there before the trial Court since the time of the suit in the year 2016 till the time they filed their implead petition in the year 2017 by which time evidence on both sides was over. Thus, it seems, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that with a view to delay the proceedings only it was at that stage of the suit, the impleading petitioners attempted to come on record. Be that as it may. 12. According to the plaint as well the written statement, the admitted facts are that the suit schedule property was sold by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed. The contention in the written statement is that the defendant by himself had no exclusive right to sell the property. The case of the impleading petitioners as well as the case of the defendant in his written statement go to show that having succeeded the property from their mother it is the property joint among all the four siblings and one of the sharers/defendant himself had no exclusive right to sell it. Thus, whether the defendant alone was entitled to sell or whether the impleading three petitioners have also got right over the immovable property is a matter of dispute between these three impleading petitioners and their own brother, who is defendant in the suit. Till now, neither of them filed any suit for a declaration that the alleged sale deed is void and they have not filed any suit for partition or for any other relief. Now the title dispute among brothers is the one that is sought to be brought on record by the impleading petitioners. 13. As per the averments in the written statement, the defendant was holding exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. While according to the plaintiff, he let out the property to the defendant and therefore, the defendant has been in possession of it. 13. As per the averments in the written statement, the defendant was holding exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. While according to the plaintiff, he let out the property to the defendant and therefore, the defendant has been in possession of it. However, according to the defendant, he never took it on lease and with the consent of his three siblings he is staying in the plaint schedule property. These are the matters of facts that are alleged by the parties. 14. It is in the above context, one has to see the nature of the suit. The suit is filed by the plaintiff claiming himself to be a lessor of the property supported by a registered lease deed and his claim is that his tenant/defendant is now not vacating the premises despite notices and he is also not paying rents despite demands. Thus, the issues that arise between the parties on facts and law that require determination in the suit are that whether the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant. In other words, whether there is a legal relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit. If such legal relation ship is there, the plaintiff would win the case and if he failed to show the said legal relationship, the plaintiff would fail. To determine their legal relationship, which was allegedly out of a registered lease deed, the presence of other people, who claim title over the property is irrelevant. Necessary party one in whose absence an effective determination of the dispute cannot be reached. The contours of the suit are confined to find out the truth or otherwise of landlord and tenant relationship. Impleading petitioners by their presence and by raising a title dispute between themselves and their sibling cannot be permitted to expand the scope of the suit. Any decree that would be passed between the parties to the suit would not effect the right and title of the impleading parties. Their presence in the suit would not result in any positive relief in their favour since they sought to be impleaded only as defendants. Addition of parties should not be made merely to avoid multiplicity of suits if their presence is not necessary for determining the real questions. Their presence in the suit would not result in any positive relief in their favour since they sought to be impleaded only as defendants. Addition of parties should not be made merely to avoid multiplicity of suits if their presence is not necessary for determining the real questions. The contention that the revision petitioners are necessary parties could be considered only when the decision in the suit could bind them. Since the dispute in the suit is between a landlord and tenant and since the impleading petitioners are not the tenants, any decision in the suit could not bind them. Therefore, they cannot be called as necessary parties. A decision between the plaintiff and defendant does not bind them in any manner. Their absence does not prevent effective and complete determination of relevant facts in the suit. The presence of these impleading petitioners would certainly change the nature and character of the suit. One may see that a simple suit for recovery of arrears of rent from tenant cannot be converted into a suit for title even if the question of title may have to be incidentally investigated in a suit of such nature vide Bhagirathmall v. Ramricklal, AIR 1977 Calcutta 346. These being the principles, one has to see whether the trial Court adhere to them or not. The order of the trial Court indicates that it went on appropriate lines when it said that the impleading petitioners have got every right to seek their remedy by filing another suit. That a plaintiff cannot be forced to involve himself into controversies, which he did not wish to raise in the suit. Apart from those reasons, another reason that compelled the trial Court to reach to adverse conclusion against the impleading parties is that it perused the alleged patta contended by the impleading petitioners and compared it as against the plaint schedule property and found that they are different. It was in that context it held that there were no bona fides on part of the impleading petitioners. Thus, apt reasons were given by the trial Court. At the bar, learned counsel for revision petitioners could not dispute that the right to remedy available to the impleading petitioners is intact. Learned counsel also could not deny that a judgment between the plaintiff and defendant could never bind on these impleading petitioners. Thus, apt reasons were given by the trial Court. At the bar, learned counsel for revision petitioners could not dispute that the right to remedy available to the impleading petitioners is intact. Learned counsel also could not deny that a judgment between the plaintiff and defendant could never bind on these impleading petitioners. When that being the case, the contention of the revision petitioners that their presence is necessary because they hold legal interest over the property and their presence would avoid multiplicity of litigation are now for consideration. As stated earlier, their grievance against the sale deed allegedly executed by the defendant in the suit remain intact and as it is despite their participation in the present suit between parties. It is so because in that suit the sale deed said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff cannot be set aside. Therefore, the impleading petitioners’ participation in the existing suit does not obviate another suit on their part against their own brother. Therefore, their contention that their participation would avoid multiplicity of litigation is against facts and logic and against law and is thus negatived. Their substantial interest over the suit property is the contention that arises between the impleading petitioners and their brother and not as against the plaintiff in the suit. Therefore, their perceived substantial rights have to be agitated in a suit laid by them and not in a suit laid by the plaintiff. Thus, all the grounds urged in this revision are devoid of any merit and the order of the trial Court is immaculate. It does not require any interference. Point is answered against the revision petitioners. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs confirming the order dated 23.10.2018 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in I.A.No.953 of 2017 in O.S.No.30 of 2016. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.