Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1295 (AP)

Chinta Srinivasa Reddy v. Mangena Sree Rama Rao

2023-09-13

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2023
ORDER : (V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) Sole defendant in the suit filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 29.03.2019 of learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram in I.A.No.486 of 2019 in O.S.No.88 of 2015. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the sole defendant for his prayer to implead eight individuals as defendants in the suit. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.88 of 2015. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents resisting the petition. 4. Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for respondents submitted arguments. 5. The point that falls for consideration is: "Whether the proposed parties are necessary or proper parties for their impleadment as defendants in O.S.No.88 of 2015 and the learned trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it and the impugned order occasioned injustice requiring interference?" POINT: 6. O.S.No.88 of 2015 was filed by plaintiffs as against defendant seeking for refund of Rs.23,45,520/- along with 24% interest per annum and for costs and such other reliefs. A schedule is appended to the plaint describing the immovable property in an extent of 710.74 square yards in R.S.No.234 situate in Rayalam Village of Bhimavaram Mandal of West Godavari District. The allegations in the plaint are that the sole defendant in the suit claimed to be the exclusive owner of the plaint schedule property and believing that plaintiffs agreed to purchase the same and as a consequence the defendant executed a registered possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 14.03.2014 and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.16,51,000/- from the plaintiffs and delivered possession of the property to the plaintiffs. In the plaint it is stated that the defendant claimed his title by virtue of registered sale deed dated 08.05.2013 executed by Smt.Ungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani represented by her GPA holder Salsar Developers. It is under that title stating that he would convey a title free from encumbrances he executed the earlier mentioned registered possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiffs. It is under that title stating that he would convey a title free from encumbrances he executed the earlier mentioned registered possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaint further states that plaintiffs came to know that the property that was sought to be sold to the plaintiffs was already subjected to an earlier alienation made by Smt.Ungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani to Sri Thota Krishna Murthy under a registered sale deed dated 28.09.2010 and the said Thota Krishna Murthy mortgaged it with IDBI Bank. Therefore, the registered sale deed dated 08.05.2013 executed by Smt.Ungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani in favour of the defendant did not convey any valid title to the defendant. It is in the above referred context of facts plaintiffs in the presence of two others demanded the defendant to refund the money he received from the plaintiffs and he initially agreed to do it but thereafter refused to comply with it. In such circumstances, on the written information lodged by the plaintiffs, Crime No.294 of 2015 was registered against the defendant by Bhimavaram I Town Police Station. The present suit is filed for refund of the money they paid to the defendant along with interest and damages. 7. Plaint further alleges that acting upon the possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney executed by the defendant in favour of these plaintiffs, the plaintiffs sold the plaint schedule property to Sri Vegesna Venkata Narasimha Raju under a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2014 and to Smt.Vegesna Eswaramma under a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2014 and received sale consideration. However, those purchasers filed PLC No.757 of 2015 before Mandal Legal Services Committee, Bhimavaram as against the plaintiffs stating that these plaintiffs had sold the property without valid title and therefore, they sought for refund of Rs.14,23,000/- that was paid by them to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appeared before the Lok Adalat and the matter was settled and an award dated 10.10.2015 was passed by Lok Adalat Bench at Bhimavaram whereunder plaintiffs had refunded that money to their purchasers. Those purchasers returned the registered sale deeds and other records to the plaintiffs. 8. Taking various objections, defendant filed a written statement. Necessary issues were settled. Suit went for trial and certain witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and certain documents were marked. Those purchasers returned the registered sale deeds and other records to the plaintiffs. 8. Taking various objections, defendant filed a written statement. Necessary issues were settled. Suit went for trial and certain witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and certain documents were marked. It was at that stage the defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.486 of 2019 in O.S.No.88 of 2015 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking for impleadment of the following eight persons as defendants in the suit: i) Ungarala Suray Sudha Renuka Devi, W/o. Subba Rao, female, aged about 40 years, housewife, R/o. D.No.23-5-35, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dt. (BJCJC) ii) Salasar Developers, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vikesh Kumar Agarwal, D.No.7-7-24/5, FCI Colony, Kumudavalli road, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dt. (BJCJC) iii) Vikesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Sankarlal Agarwal, aged about 41 years, Male, Business, Managing Partner to Salasar Developers, R/o. D.No.7-7-24/5, FCI Colony, Kumudavalli road, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dt. (BJCJC) iv) Thota Krishna Murthy, S/o. Satyanarayana, Male, Aged about 50 years, Properties, R/o. D.No.4-80/1, Srungavruksham, Palakoderu Mandal, W.G.Dt. (BJCJC) v) Gudise Naga Vara Prasad, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 62 years, Male, R/o. D.No.17-6-54, M.V.Street, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dt. (BJCJC) vi) Bhogireddy Venkata Satya Hanuman, S/o. Anjaneyulu, aged about 51 years, Male, R/o. D.No.3-2-94, Surineedivari Street, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dt. (BJCJC). vii) Vegesna Venkata Narasimha Raju, S/o. Venkata Subba Raju, Male, Aged about 71 years, Properties, R/o. D.No.4-16, China Amiram, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dt. (BJCJC) viii) Vegesna Eswaramma, W/o. Venkata Narasimha Raju, Female, Aged about 65 years, Housewife and Properties, R/o. D.No.4-16, China Amiram, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dt. (BJCJC). 9. In the sworn affidavit filed by the defendant as a petitioner in that application he stated that he is a bona fide purchaser from his vendors and he validly executed agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that during real estate boom he was made to believe that he would get better money and made him to execute the possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of plaintiffs without receiving any consideration and the plaintiffs having obtained the property from him and having sold out the same property to others did not pay him any part of the sale consideration which they promised to pay. It is further stated that the alleged award before the Lok Adalat between the plaintiffs and their purchasers is collusive and the defendant is not a party there and therefore that award does not bind him. It is further stated that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs did not seek for cancellation of the registered documents they executed in favour of their purchasers. That the suit is also not maintainable for not impleading the vendors of the defendant. Therefore, he seeks impleadment of vendors of his document as well as the vendees of the plaintiffs. 10. The learned III Additional District Judge after hearing learned counsel on both sides and on consideration of the material on record took the view that the dispute between parties emanated out of registered possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney between parties and the prayer in the suit is only for refund of money and in such circumstances, the vendors of the defendant and the vendees of the plaintiffs are neither necessary parties nor proper parties. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. 11. Assailing that, defendant is here with this revision. Learned counsel for revision petitioner filed a copy of order dated 21.03.2016 in W.P.(S.R.) No.10072 of 2016 of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The present defendant/revision petitioner filed the said writ petition assailing the Lok Adalat Award dated 10.10.2015 in P.L.C.No.757 of 2015. The grievance raised by him in that writ petition is that he was not made a party to the said P.L.C. and the award and without making him a party the plaintiffs in the suit who are parties to the said P.L.C. were permitted to take legal proceedings against their vendor, who is defendant herein. It is on that premise he challenged the award. This Court dismissed the said writ petition for the following reasons which are extracted here: "As to whether, there is privity of contract between the plaintiffs in O.S.No.88 of 2015 on one hand and the defendant therein, the present writ petitioner on the other hand is a matter for consideration for the Civil Court, which tries O.S.No.88 of 2015. It is also a matter of consideration for the Civil Court as to whether the defendant in that suit, the present writ petitioner, is liable to indemnify any loss or damage caused to the plaintiffs therein independently. It is also a matter of consideration for the Civil Court as to whether the defendant in that suit, the present writ petitioner, is liable to indemnify any loss or damage caused to the plaintiffs therein independently. On those aspects, this is not the stage at which any speculation can be permitted to be indulged in. It is for the defendant in that suit, the present writ petitioner to establish before the Civil Court that he has a valid and marketable title and further that he is under no legal obligation to compensate or make good any loss or damage that has occasioned to the plaintiffs in that case. That is no reason for the writ petitioner to institute this writ petition challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat on 10.10.2015 in a pre-litigation case. Since, we find that the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged in this Court, by instituting this writ petition, only on the ground that the writ petitioner herein is not a party, we dismiss this writ petition preserving liberty to the petitioner to establish his defense before the Civil Court, as observed by us supra. However, it shall also be open to the defendant to establish before the Civil Court as to how the award dated 10.10.2015 passed by the Lok Adalat in P.L.C.No.757 of 2015 does not bind him. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed." 12. Thus, the view taken by the learned Division Bench of this Court is crystal clear that in O.S.No.88 of 2015 the essence of the dispute is between plaintiffs and defendant as to whether defendant had got marketable title or not. If the defendant had marketable title then the suit would be dismissed. On the other hand, if the defendant is found not the valid title holder and knowingly and intentionally concealed it and made the plaintiffs to part with their money, then the suit could be decreed. 13. Learned counsel for respondents, while supporting the impugned order, cited Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd., ( 2012(6) ALT 10 (SC)). Their Lordships while expounding the principles contained in Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. held that only a necessary or a property party could be impleaded in a suit and if the proposed parties are neither necessary parties nor proper parties the Courts have no jurisdiction to order their impleadment. Their Lordships while expounding the principles contained in Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. held that only a necessary or a property party could be impleaded in a suit and if the proposed parties are neither necessary parties nor proper parties the Courts have no jurisdiction to order their impleadment. That a necessary party is a person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. It is in the context of the above law, the contention of the revision petitioner has to be considered. 14. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contends that with a view to prove that he holds valid title over the disputed property, the proposed parties are necessary and therefore failure to implead them by the trial Court occasioned injustice. It is also contended that the order under revision is cryptic. 15. This Court has considered the submissions and considered the entire material on record and considered the reasons offered in the impugned order. The suit is for refund of money that was initially paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant in pursuance of registered possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. The suit is laid on the premise that the plaintiffs believed the words of the defendant that the defendant had valid title and he would convey unencumbered property. According to plaintiffs, they realized that the defendant had no valid title to convey and therefore the money they paid to him should be refunded. The defendant claims that he possessed valid title and he executed the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs under that bona fide belief. The allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant himself did not possess a valid title is a matter that had to be established by the plaintiffs in order to prove their right to refund of money. The defendant claims that he possessed valid title and he executed the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs under that bona fide belief. The allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant himself did not possess a valid title is a matter that had to be established by the plaintiffs in order to prove their right to refund of money. The vendors of defendant could be witnesses to prove or disprove any facts in dispute and by no stretch of imagination they could be stated to be either proper parties or necessary parties with reference to money paid and money received between the parties to the suit and the statements made by one to the other about the purported tile over the property. The possible witnesses cannot be equated with proper and necessary parties to the suit. As against the proposed defendants the plaint averments do not indicate any cause of action and right to sue. The vendees from plaintiffs are absolutely not concerned with the issues that could arise between parties to the suit. Whatever they believed, whatever these plaintiffs conceded resulting in passing of an award in the P.L.C. is a matter of no concern here. The right to sue for the plaintiffs is seen from the pleadings offered in the plaint and it is never dependent on any observation or absence of it in the award passed by the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat award is an event occurred much subsequent to the suit raised dispute between parties. Therefore, the claim of the revision petitioner seeking impleadment of his vendors and plaintiffs vendees is totally not acceptable and the learned trial Court rightly recognized it and dismissed his application. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are supported by enough reasons. A judicial order is expected to contain reasons that made the Court to reach to a conclusion. A sharp and accurate reason even if it is short in its purport is enough compliance with law. The comment of the petitioner that the impugned order is cryptic is without any merit. For the above reasons, this Court finds that the impugned order has not occasioned any injustice as the impugned order is correct on facts and law. Hence, point is answered against the petitioner. Parties to the suit should participate in the trial before the learned trial Court without wasting precious judicial time. 16. For the above reasons, this Court finds that the impugned order has not occasioned any injustice as the impugned order is correct on facts and law. Hence, point is answered against the petitioner. Parties to the suit should participate in the trial before the learned trial Court without wasting precious judicial time. 16. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.