Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 693 (TS)

Palepu Bharat Babu v. Palleboina Shankar died

2022-11-01

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

body2022
ORDER : The petitioner herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.72 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, which herein after will be referred as trial Court in I.A.No.800 of 2017 dated 12-03-2020, where under the request of the petitioner to add one A.Kotireddy, who is shown as 7th respondent in the interlocutory application as defendant No.7 to the main suit was dismissed, the petitioner filed the present revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. As could be seen from the material placed before this Court, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.72 of 2015 for the relief of perpetual injunction and to declare the title of the petitioner as well as for cancellation of sale deed document No.1629 of 2002 which was executed in favour of the 3rd respondent/defendant No.3. In fact the suit was filed initially for the purpose of injunction, but subsequently the suit relief was amended. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.800 of 2017 under Order I Rule 10 (2) r/w Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code with a prayer to add respondent No.7 as 7th defendant to the suit. 3. As per the plaint averments and also the averments made in the affidavit, it was the case of petitioner that his grand father by name Veerabhadraiah and one Mangapathi Rao have divided the properties by virtue of final decree in I.A.No.199 of 1969 in O.S.No.24 of 1963. As per the said final decree, the grand father of the petitioner got five (5) plots shown as Plot Nos.1 to 5 and said Mangapathi Rao also got five (5) plots which were identified as Plot Nos.A to E. The petitioner has claimed that during the life time, his grand father has executed a will and by virtue of the said will, the petitioner got an extent of Ac.0-75 gts in Plot No.3, Ac.0-28 gts in Plot No.4 and Ac.0-18 gts in Plot No.1. He has further claimed that on 23-02-2009, when he was present and clearing the bushes in Plot No.3, there was an interference with his possession by the 3rd defendant. He was informed that 3rd defendant purchased the plot thereby, he filed the above referred suit. He has further claimed that on 23-02-2009, when he was present and clearing the bushes in Plot No.3, there was an interference with his possession by the 3rd defendant. He was informed that 3rd defendant purchased the plot thereby, he filed the above referred suit. The petitioner has further claimed that the defendant who tried to interfere with his possession purchased the land from K. Venkata Rama Rao, who is the son of above referred Mangapathi Rao. In fact Mangapathi Rao got five plots which are shown as Plot Nos.A to E, thereby, the 3rd defendant cannot acquire any right over Plot No.3 or Plot No.4. 4. The petitioner in support of the above referred I.A.No.800 of 2017 filed his own affidavit and further submitted that on 13-04-2017, he visited the suit schedule property along with his well-wisher, neighbouring plot owner and others of the same locality and at that time, he came to know that there was another sale deed bearing document No.1628 of 2002 which was executed in favour of relative of defendant No.3. But the vendor under the said document had no right or title over the property. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the property covered by sale deed document No.1628 of 2002 is different from the suit schedule property but still the petitioner filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to add the said relative of defendant No.3 as defendant No.7 in the suit. The 1st respondent/defendant No.1 opposed the petition. The learned trial Court having heard both parties found that the proposed party is not a proper and necessary party to the suit, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 5. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present revision and submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, probabilities of the case as such, it would cause miscarriage of justice. According to the petitioner, the proposed party i.e., respondent No.7 is a proper and necessary party as such, he could have been impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The petitioner further stated that the trial Court ought not to have relied on the version of 3rd defendant since the prevailing scenario and delay in adjudicating the suit is exclusively attributable to the conduct of defendant No.3. The petitioner further stated that the trial Court ought not to have relied on the version of 3rd defendant since the prevailing scenario and delay in adjudicating the suit is exclusively attributable to the conduct of defendant No.3. The petitioner claimed that the respondents have suppressed the existence of sale deed No.1628 of 2002. Both the documents which is in favour of defendant No.3 vide document No.1629 of 2002 and document in favour of the proposed 7th respondent bearing document No.1629 of 2002 were executed on the same day, Plot in favour of the 3rd defendant is Southern boundary to the property under the other document bearing No.1628 of 2002. Therefore, Plots of D3 and respondent No.7 are overlapping on to the suit schedule property. Therefore, defendant No.3 cannot claim any property in Plot No.3. As per the boundaries mentioned in document No.1629 of 2002, the Northern boundary is shown as land purchased by 7th respondent. But as per the description of the schedule property in the above two sale deeds, both the plots are in Sy.No.235/E which is far away from the suit schedule property, apart from the fact that Plot No.D and Plot No.4 are existing in between plot No.3 and Plot No.E. 6. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the respondent No.7 is a proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings. But the Court below failed to appreciate this fact and dismissed the petition, thereby, he sought for setting aside the said order. 7. According to the further grounds mentioned in the revision, the petitioner had submitted that according to the counter filed by the respondent No.3 in the said I.A.No.800 of 2017, property covered by document No.1629 of 2002 is forming part of plot No.3 thereby, he was desperately attempting to depict plot of land under his document is purported to be part of property in Plot No.3. The petitioner having claimed that defendant No.3 has been consistently canvassing that his plot is confirming part of suit schedule property though he purchased land from Plot No.E in Sy.No.235 of Khanapuram Haveli, which is in the Khammam town limits, by taking undue advantage of false sketch annexed to his sale deed claiming that his plot was abutting to the southern boundary of the suit schedule property. Whereas, Plot No.D and Plot No.4 are subsisting in between suit schedule property and Plot No.E which is in Sy.No.235. 8. Whereas, Plot No.D and Plot No.4 are subsisting in between suit schedule property and Plot No.E which is in Sy.No.235. 8. Heard both parties. 9. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the 7th respondent i.e., proposed defendant No.7 is a proper and necessary party to the main suit and whether the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein? 10. Admittedly, the suit is filed on the basis of possession and title over a particular plot. According to the petitioners claimed in the main suit, the property covered by 10 different plots which are subsequently identified as Plot Nos.1 to 5 and Plot Nos.A to E, which is subject matter of a suit vide 24 of 1963 was divided between his grand father Veerabadraiah and one Mangapathi Rao. The petitioner/plaintiff has claimed that by virtue of the final decree in the above referred suit, his grand father has got Plot Nos.1 to 5 and Mangapathi Rao was allotted Plots identified as Plot No.A to Plot No.E. It is his further case in the suit that when he was present and clearing his own plot that he got by virtue of a will deed executed by his grand father, there was an attempt to interfere into his property covered by Plot No.3. The petitioner has claimed that the defendant No.3 claiming title over an extent of property by virtue of sale deed said to have been executed by son of above referred Mangapathi Rao. The petitioner/plaintiff sought for an injunction against the defendant No.3 apart from declaration of his title. While the said suit was pending before the trial Court, the petitioner filed the petition under Order I Rule 10 r/w Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to add one more defendant to the suit. The basis for such request is his knowledge with regard to one more document vide document No.1628 of 2002. According to his own affidavit, he came to know about this document when he visited the suit schedule property with well-wishers and some other persons of the same locality and he came to know about the existence of the above said document which was also executed on the same day on which the document in favour of the defendant No.3 was executed. The petitioner in his affidavit categorically stated that the property shown/covered by document No.1628 of 2002 in favour of the proposed party is different from the property which he got from his grand father. Except saying that the properties covered by the above referred two documents are over lapping and there was some mistake with regard to the boundaries etc. The petitioner did not explain as to how the 7th respondent is necessary party to the suit. It is not the case of petitioner that the proposed petitioner made an attempt to interfere with his possession nor it is his case that the proposed defendant denied the title of the petitioner over Plot Nos.1, 3 and 4 which is shown as suit schedule property. No where in the petition, the petitioner has submitted as to how the proposed party is a proper and necessary party for effective and complete adjudication of his right in the suit. According to Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., the Court, on its own or on the request of any party to the suit can implead any person to a pending suit when it came to the conclusion that the proposed party is a proper and necessary party for effective and complete adjudication of the suit. The petitioner did not state any reason as to why he wanted the other person i.e., respondent No.7 to be impleaded as defendant No.7 to the main suit. 11. As already stated the suit was filed by the petitioner for injunction, declaration of his title on three different extents in Plot Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is not the case of petitioner that the proposed party made any attempt to interfere with his possession. He has simply claimed that on 13-04-2017, when he visited the suit schedule property, he came to know about the existence of another document which was also executed on the same day on which defendant No.3 obtained a document in his favour, thereby, he wanted an unconcerned person be impleaded as a party to the pending suit. Therefore, the trial Court having considered the pleadings, arguments came to a correct conclusion and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. The revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. Therefore, the trial Court having considered the pleadings, arguments came to a correct conclusion and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. The revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.