Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 749 (AP)

Bojja Bhasakara Rao v. Vaschavai Ramanamma

2024-07-08

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2024
ORDER : Nyapathy Vijay, J. 1. The C.R.P. No.6261 of 2018 is filed against the interlocutory order dated 19.09.2018 in I.A. No.2334 of 2018 in O.S. No.39 of 2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District. The C.R.P. No.6262 of 2018 is filed against the interlocutory order dated 19.09.2018 in I.A. No.2335 of 2018 in O.S. No.39 of 2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The I.A. No.2334 of 2018 was filed seeking to re-open the suit to the file. The I.A. No.2335 of 2018 was filed to implead the 5th respondent. The trial court after considering the contentions of respective parties dismissed the I.A.s, Hence, the present CRPs are filed. 3. Heard Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for Sri V. Siva Prasad Reddy and Sri Balaji Varma, learned counsel appearing for Sri I. Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proposed respondent is a necessary party/proper party to the suit for enforcement of decree of specific performance. The counsel for the respondents opposed the same on the ground that the claim against the proposed defendant is barred by time as the sale in favour of the 5th respondent was on 24.01.2013 even before commencement of the suit and apart from that there is no requirement to implead the 5th respondent since the sale deed is not under challenge in the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2012 INSC 263 : 2012 (7) SCC 738 to contend that court has power to extend time and the learned counsel for the respondent relied on 2007 (2) ALT 225 to substantiate their plea of limitation. 6. Having heard the respective counsels, the core issue in this case is whether the application filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. 7. The suit was filed on 11.02.2013 and the written statement was filed on 14.06.2013. The suit was filed seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.09.1993. In the written statement filed by the defendant No. 4, apart from denying the plaint averments, it was specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property was alienated in favour of the 5th respondent under a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2013 and had delivered possession of the same to him. 8. In the written statement filed by the defendant No. 4, apart from denying the plaint averments, it was specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property was alienated in favour of the 5th respondent under a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2013 and had delivered possession of the same to him. 8. The opposition to the above mentioned applications was on the ground that those applications were filed on 20.08.2018 and the petitioner's claim against the 5th respondent is barred by limitation relying on the Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1905 as the petitioner was having knowledge of the sale deed since 2013. 9. As per Section 19 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, the relief of specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers also provided they did not have any notice of the prior agreement of sale. The limited purpose to implead subsequent purchaser is for enforcement of decree by establishing that the sale was not bonafide. The question of limitation, which was elaborately argued, would be applicable only when the sale deed is sought to be challenged and not when a party sought to be impleaded in a suit. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Ramasubbamma Vs V.Vijayalakshmi and others 2022 INSC 413 : 2022 (7) SCC 384 considered the aspect as to whether sale deed of subsequent purchaser is required to be challenged in a suit for specific performance. In that case, the High court set aside the judgment and decree of specific performance by the trial court on the ground that sale deed of the subsequent purchaser was not challenged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court negatived the said aspect as the trial court had framed issues as whether the subsequent sale deed is bonafide or not and answered the said issue holding that the sale is not bonafide even though there was no specific challenge to the sale deeds. The judgment of the High court was set-aside. Therefore, if the document is not required to be challenged, the question of limitation does not arise. 11. The judgment of the High court was set-aside. Therefore, if the document is not required to be challenged, the question of limitation does not arise. 11. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon a Judgment authored by Sri Justice Vivian Bose between Lala Durga Prasad Vs Lala Deep Chand 1953 INSC 74 : AIR 1954 SC 75 which had considered these aspect and held at para 42 as under "42.In our opinion, the proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in him to the plaintiff. He does not join in any special covenants made between the plaintiff and his vendor; all he does is to pass on his title to the plaintiff. This was the course followed by the Calcutta High Court in Kafiladdin v. Samiraddin (I), and appears to be the English practice." 12. On the aspect of limitation, the subsequent sale deed cannot be said to be void as it does not violate any legal provision. The said document is only voidable, but voidability can only at the instance of parties/party to that sale deed. Therefore, there is no occasion for the petitioner who is a third party to question the sale deed. It is in this context that Section 19 of Specific Relief Act.1963 speaks only of enforceability only vis-à-vis subsequent purchasers. It is also to be noted here that another underlying reason for section 19 of the Act is that the sale deed executed pursuant to a decree for specific performance relates back to date of agreement. Therefore, there is no requirement to challenge the subsequent sale deed and it is sufficient if the subsequent purchaser joins the sale deed. 13. On the aspect of necessity to implead the subsequent purchaser, there cannot be any dispute to the fact that the subsequent purchaser would be affected in the event of decree and it would be in his interest to be party to the suit. Apart from that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson 2019 INSC 770 : 2020(13) SCC 773 held that in a suit for specific performance, it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to implead subsequent purchaser being the dominus litis. 14. Apart from that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson 2019 INSC 770 : 2020(13) SCC 773 held that in a suit for specific performance, it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to implead subsequent purchaser being the dominus litis. 14. Therefore, the orders of the trial Court are required to be interfered with and as such the same are liable to be set aside. The suit being of the year 2013, the trial court shall endeavour to proceed on priority basis and pass judgment within one year from today. 15. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.