.-. ORDER : 1. C.R.P. No. 1042 of 2022 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree, dated 25.04.2022, dismissing I.A.No.382 of 2021 in O.S.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, whereas C.R.P. No. 780 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 22.02.2025, dismissing I.A.No.376 of 2022 in the same suit. 2. Since both the applications arise out of the same suit with similar reliefs and have common contest, they were heard together and common order is being passed. 3. The suit was initially filed for the relief of perpetual injunction and later got amended seeking the prayer for declaration of title and perpetual injunction etc., and therefore, on point of jurisdiction, the suit (O.S.No.15 of 2013) was transferred from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allagadda, and numbered as O.S.No.15 of 2021. The suit was filed in respect of four items of properties out of which item No.1 relates to Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.224/1, Dasagiri thota chenu, Chagalamarri village and mandal of Kurnool district bounded by East: land of Veeramreddy Prasada Reddy; West: Land of Kaipa Parvathamma; North: Rastha; and South: Land of Veeramreddy Subba Reddy. 4. The suit was filed in respect of four items of properties out of which item No.1 relates to Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.224/1, Dasagiri thota chenu, Chagalamarri village and mandal of Kurnool district bounded by East: land of Veeramreddy Prasada Reddy; West: Land of Kaipa Parvathamma; North: Rastha; and South: Land of Veeramreddy Subba Reddy. 4. Pending the suit Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy filed petition in I.A.No.382 of 2021 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C read with Section 151 CPC to implead him as one of the defendants stating that the suit was initially filed for perpetual injunction (against the sole defendant – Veeramreddy Padmavathamma, but later the suit was got amended seeking the relief of declaration of right, title and consequential permanent injunction; that the defendant engaged Sri K.V.Subba Sharma, Advocate of Chagalamarri village; that the suit schedule item No.1 property belongs to the petitioner; that the total extent of the landed property of Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.224/1 (224/1A) and the property of item No.1 of suit schedule is part and parcel of the suit property which belongs to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is interested in the property and to contest the suit; that because the petitioner was held up in Hyderabad due to his employment and his parents died, he could not follow up the case and he had come to know about the suit recently before filing of the petition and that he is a necessary party to the suit. - 5. The petition was opposed by counter of the respondent No.1/ plaintiff mainly stating that the petitioner has no manner of right over the property and he has never been in possession at any point of time; that the petition was filed only to harass the plaintiff and make unlawful gain by the petitioner; that the petitioner has been threatening the plaintiff and demanding huge amount and that the petitioner had not filed any evidence to show his interest in the suit property. 6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition. It was observed by the trial Court that during the course of arguments, the petitioner filed written arguments along with Photostat copy of pattadar passbook and adangal copy, dated 14.10.2014 and 08.09.2021 besides a copy of the legal notice. 6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition. It was observed by the trial Court that during the course of arguments, the petitioner filed written arguments along with Photostat copy of pattadar passbook and adangal copy, dated 14.10.2014 and 08.09.2021 besides a copy of the legal notice. The Court recorded that the contention of the petitioner is that the land of Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.224/1A belong to his father Veeramreddy Narasimha Reddy and that the petitioner had succeeded to the said property being only son on the death of his father by way of succession. The Court further recorded that the counter of the defendant is that the petitioner has no right or title over the said property and filed a certified copy of the registered gift deed, dated 16.05.1946 which shows that Pedda Narasimha Reddy gifted Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.224/1 in favour of Rama Subbamma at the time of marriage; that the Court certificate was filed by the defendant to show that the property was brought to sale and the sale was confirmed in O.S.No.34 of 1950 and that the property was auctioned in the year 1954 at the instance of Rama Subbamma and V.C.Narasimha Reddy purchased the property of Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.224/1 for an amount of Rs.370/- along with other items of property in the action and that subsequent to the death Chinna Narasimha Reddy, his wife, Nagamma and sons, Doraswami Reddy, Raja Gopal Reddy and Padmanabha Reddy sold the said property for livelihood and maintenance etc., in favour of Veeramreddy Pedda Narasimha Reddy under registered sale deed, dated 19.09.1963 and after the death of the purchaser, his wife succeeded to the property and executed G.P.A-cum-Sale agreement in favour of respondent No.2, i.e., Veeramreddy Padmavathamma / defendant on 05.01.2020. The trial Court referred to the adangal filed by the petitioner and noted that an extent of Ac.0.80 cents was pledged by Narasimha Prasad Reddy and his son NIranjan Reddy which categorically shows that the petitioner has got right over only Ac.0.80 cents. Buttressing the same finding, the trial Court further recorded that the gift deed, dated 18.01.2010, executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner is also in respect of only Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.223/1A (sic.224/1A). Buttressing the same finding, the trial Court further recorded that the gift deed, dated 18.01.2010, executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner is also in respect of only Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.223/1A (sic.224/1A). Therefore, the trial Court held the view that the plaintiff and the defendant to the suit are litigating over Ac.0.54 cents and not Ac.0.80 cents. Therefore, the trial Court opined that the petitioner could not establish his prima facie case with documentary proof to contest against Ac.0.54 cents which is the subject matter of item No.1 and further found that if really, the petitioner has any right or title, he can file a separate suit for declaration of the same, but he cannot be allowed to come on record in a suit for injunction, without having any possession, right or title, though in the following paragraph, it noted that the suit was filed for declaration of title by getting the suit amended. - - 7. Aggrieved by the order, dated 25.04.2022, C.R.P. No. 1042 of 2022 was filed on 14.06.2022. 8. Meanwhile on 06.05.2022, Pochana Srinivasa Reddy filed I.A.No.376 of 2022 under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C to implead him as one of the defendants stating that he purchased the property in an extent of Ac.1437 sq. yards in Sy.No.224/1A1, plot Nos.9 to 17 for Rs.17,25,000/- under a registered sale deed, dated 12.07.2021 from Katasani Sree Rama Reddy and took possession of the same on the same day and has been enjoying the same since then without any interruption from the plaintiff or the defendant and that the petitioner had recently come to know that this property is in dispute in suit in O.S.No.15 of 2021 and filed petition to implead him as one of the defendants. He further stated that Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy was the owner of total extent of Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.224/1 (224/1A) of which the property in item No.1 of the suit schedule is part and parcel. 9. The petition was opposed by filing counters of respondent No.1/plaintiff and respondent No.2 / defendant. 10. He further stated that Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy was the owner of total extent of Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.224/1 (224/1A) of which the property in item No.1 of the suit schedule is part and parcel. 9. The petition was opposed by filing counters of respondent No.1/plaintiff and respondent No.2 / defendant. 10. The respondent No.1 stated that Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy and some other persons filed petition to add them as parties to the suit and the petitions were dismissed after enquiry and again the petitioner who is no way concerned with the property filed this petition with false allegations and claims without filing any documents in support of his interest in the property. This respondent further contended that the petitioner himself got created document in favour of other person and that the petition was filed only to harass this respondent and make unlawful gain. It is also contended that the petitioner is threatening this respondent and demanding huge amount using blackmail tactics. - 11. In the counter filed by the respondent No.2 / defendant, it was contended that the petitioner had not filed any proof in support of the right or possession claimed and that the petition is filed only to make unlawful gain and delay the matter. It is also contended that the petitioner had not filed any documents of chain of the transaction of title. The 2 nd respondent submits that originally item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and other property belongs to one Veeram Reddy Pedda Narasimha Reddy. The said Pedda Narasimha Reddy gifted some properties to his 2 nd wife by name, Rama Subbamma, at the time of 2 nd marriage. After the marriage of three years, disputes arose between the said Pedda Narasimha Reddy and his 2 nd wife Rama Subbamma on account of her cruel behavior. Subsequently, the said Rama Subbamma filed maintenance case vide O.S.No.34 of 1950 before the Court of District Munsif, Nandyal, against the said V. Pedda Narasimha Reddy. In the year 1954, the Court sold the properties including item No.1 of the plaint schedule property by way of public auction and in this auction, Veeram Reddy Chinna Narasimha Reddy purchased the properties including item No.1 of the plaint schedule property for Rs.370/-. After settlement of his 2 nd wife, the said V. Pedda Narasimha Reddy again married one lady, by name, Venkata Ramanamma as his 3 rd wife. After settlement of his 2 nd wife, the said V. Pedda Narasimha Reddy again married one lady, by name, Venkata Ramanamma as his 3 rd wife. The following list of documents was shown in the counter: - S. No. Date Particulars Remarks 1 16-5-1946 Reg. Gift settlement deed executed in favour of Veeram Reddy Rama Subbamma by Veeram Reddy Pedda Narasimha Reddy Certified copy 2 19-4-1955 Order XXI, Rule 94 C.P.C order by way of public auction properties purchased by Veeram Reddy Chinna Narasimha Reddy Certified copy 3 19-9-1963 Reg. sale deed executed in favour of Veeram Reddy Pedda Narasimha Reddy by Veeeram Reddy Nagamma, V.Doraswamy Reddy & others, i.e., L.Rs of Veeram Reddy Chinna Narasimha Reddy Certified copy 4 05-1-2010 G.P cum Agreement executed in favour of the 2nd respondent by Veeram Reddy Venkata Ramanamma W/o late V.Pedda Narasimha Reddy Certified copy 5 06-2-2019 Disputed Adangal with regard to Sy.No.224/1 (Ac.0.54 cents) Meeseva copy 6 19-3-1971 Reg. mortgage deed executed in favour of P.A.C.S., Allagadda by Veeram Reddy Narashima Prasada Reddy and others Certified copy 7 18-1-2010 Reg. gift deed executed in favour of Veeram Reddy Niranjan Reddy (who is the petitioner /3rd party) by Veeramreddy Narasimha Prasad Reddy Certified copy 8 --- Pattadar passbook in favour of the 2nd respondent Original filed along with W.S In addition to the above documents, along with the written statement, the following list of documents was filed. - S. No. Date Particulars Remarks 1 20-11-2003 Decree copy in O.S.No.286 of 1998 Xerox copy 2 28-8-2007 Decree copy in A.S.No.1 of 2004 Xerox copy 3 30-6-2010 Order in S.A.M.P.No.1396/2010 in S.A.No.1405/2007 Served copy 4 14-9-2005 Title deed pass book in favour of the defendant Served copy 5 3-11-2012 No.3 adangal issued by Mee Seva Authorities for the Fasli 1422 Original 6 No.3 adangal issued by revenue authorities for the Fasli 1420 and 1421 True copies After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that since the petition filed by Veeram Reddy Niranjan Reddy in I.A.No.382 of 2021 was dismissed on merits on 25.04.2022 and subsequently, the present petition was filed on 06.05.2022 and the petitioner contends that the property belong to Veeram Reddy Niranjan Reddy and moreover, no document has been filed to show that the vendor of the petitioner has got right over the property , the petitioner has no case. It is also observed that the petitioner can file a separate suit, if he has got a right or title. Though certain documents were shown in the list, no document was marked in evidence on either side. 12. Aggrieved by the order, revision petition in C.R.P.No.780 of 2025 was filed. 13. The learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in both the revisions vehemently contended that there was collision between the plaintiff and the defendant and they are trying to get the matter settled through Lok Adalat and got a final decree and whereas the proposed parties have good case. He further submitted that the petitioner in C.R.P.No.780 of 2025 filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2022 against the plaintiff and the defendant in the present suit and that along with the suit, I.A.No.873 of 2022 was filed seeking temporary injunction in respect of Ac.1437.5 square yards, which is the subject matter of the present petition and got a temporary injunction in his favour agaist both the parties to the suit and the same is still in force, but the said fact was not considered by the trial Court. He further submitted that though the plaintiff and the defendant are contesting in the present petitions, they have not taken active steps to oppose the temporary injunction order granted in favour of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.780 of 2025 and there would be conflict of decisions in case if both the matters are allowed to be disposed of separately or the present suit is allowed to be compromised before the Lok Adalat, in the absence of the petitioner. - 14. That apart, he submitted that a detailed pleadings are taken in O.S.No.186 of 2022 as to how the total extent of Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.224/1 passed on to Niranjan Reddy and thereafter, the property was sold and in view of the same, before adjudicating the necessity of hearing the petitioners as defendants in the suit, prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. He further submitted that while deciding the petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., prima facie case pleaded by the parties shall be examined to decide whether the presence of the party proposed to be impleaded is necessary or proper for adjudication of the suit and that in the light of the so much of dispute between the parties and the above stated circumstances, it is highly necessary to implead the petitioners to the suit as defendants. - 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 / plaintiff and defendant vehemently opposed the petitions and submitted as observed in the impugned orders. 16. At this junction, it is pertinent to refer the pleadings in O.S.No.186 of 2022. They are as follows: a. The petition schedule property originally belonged to one Veeramreddy Nagi Reddy of Chagalamarri village. He had four sons and four daughters who were married long back. The daughters of the said Nagi Reddy were married long back and they were separated from the joint family and were living separately with their husbands and staying at different places. The sons of Veeramreddy Nagi Reddy, by name, 1) Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad Reddy, 2) Narasimha Prasad Reddy, 3) Chenchi Reddy, 4) Nagendra Reddy. After the death of said Nagi Reddy, all the four sons partitioned their joint family property and that the landed property to an extent of ac.1.34 cents in Sy.No.224/1 of Chagalamarri village limits fell to the share of V. Narasimha Prasad Reddy. The petition schedule property is part and parcel of the landed property in Sy.No.224/1 as stated above. After partition which was held in the year 1968, the name of Veeramreddy Narasimha Prasad Reddy was mutated in the revenue records and that he obtained pattadar passbook and title deed book in respect of the landed property to an extent of Ac.1.34 cents in Sy.No.224/1 of Chagalamarri village limits. Except V.Nagendra Reddy, all the sons of Nagi Reddy, as stated above, died. The said Narasimha Prasad Reddy had only one son, by name, Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy. During the lifetime of Veeramreddy Narasimha Prasad Reddy, he gifted the landed property to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.224/1A (sub-divided) and other properties in favour of his son. Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy under registered gift deed, dated 18.01.2010, and delivered possession of the same on the same day. During the lifetime of Veeramreddy Narasimha Prasad Reddy, he gifted the landed property to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.224/1A (sub-divided) and other properties in favour of his son. Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy under registered gift deed, dated 18.01.2010, and delivered possession of the same on the same day. The said gift, dated 18.01.2010, is accepted by Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy and is in possession and enjoyment of the same as of right. Again during the lifetime of Veeramreddy Narasimha Prasad Reddy, he made declaration to the concerned revenue authorities to mutate the name of his son, V.Niranjan Reddy in respect of the remaining landed property to an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in the revenue records by deleting his name and that the revenue authorities after making enquiry mutated the name of Niranjan Reddy to the entire land of Ac.1.34 cents in the concerned revenue records. The said Veeramreddy Narasimha Prasad Reddy died on 13.05.2019 at Chgalamarri village leaving behind his wife, V.Devaki Rani, and his only son Veeramreddy Niranjan Reddy. V.Devaki Ranik also died on 21.04.2020 leaving behind his only son V.Niranjan Reddy. The said V.Niranjan Reddy succeeded all the properties of his father Veeramreddy Narasimha Prasad Reddy by way of succession and survivorship. Later, the said V. Niranjan Reddy got mutated all the immovable properties of late Veeramreddy Narasimha Prasad Reddy including the landed property to an extent of Ac.1.34 cents in Sy.No.224/1 of Chagalamarri village limits, he also obtained pattadar passbook and title deed book in respect of the landed property in Sy.No.224/1 from the revenue authorities including other properties. So, V. Niranjan Reddy became the absolute owner of the above said property to an extent of Ac.1.34 cents in Sy.No.224/1 of Chagalamarri village limits and later Ac.0.01 cents was acquired by National Highway authorities and that the said Niranjan Reddy got Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.224/1. During the lifetime of Veeramreddy Narasiha Prasad Reddy, the said Niranjan Reddy executed a registered sale deed in favour of Gopireddy Siva Prasad Reddy s/o Eswara Reddy of Konidedu village of Panyam Mandal on 21.11.2013 vide document No.2555/2013. During the lifetime of Veeramreddy Narasiha Prasad Reddy, the said Niranjan Reddy executed a registered sale deed in favour of Gopireddy Siva Prasad Reddy s/o Eswara Reddy of Konidedu village of Panyam Mandal on 21.11.2013 vide document No.2555/2013. Because of the said Siva Prasad Reddy failed to pay the consideration amount to the vendor Niranjan Reddy, both the purchaser and vendor have agreed to get cancellation of alleged registered sale deed, dated 21.11.2013 and both of them cancelled the alleged registered sale deed, dated 21.11.2013, under registered cancellation deed, dated 12.01.2015, in respect of the landed property to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.224/1A of Chagalamarri village limits. Later, the said land was converted into plots. - - b. The respondents are residents of Chagalamarri village and are no way concerned to the petition schedule property and that they were never in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property at any time. Recently, disputes arose between the plaintiff and respondents in respect of the petition schedule property. The respondents are most powerful and influential persons in Chagalamarri village and are having rowdy elements in the said village. 17. A perusal of the above pleadings and on examination of the contentions, it is found that the affidavits in support of the petitions filed by Vemireddy Niranjan Reddy and Pochana Srinivasa Reddy are incomplete and inadequate regarding the flow of title whereas the pleadings in the suit in O.S.No.186 of 2022 clearly narrate the flow of title pleaded in respect of the whole extent of Ac.1.34 cents in Sy.No.224/1, a part of which is item No.1 of the suit schedule property in the present suit. Therefore, it clearly shows that the interest claimed by them in item No.1 for adjudication is clearly set out. 18. That apart, since Pochana Srinivas Reddy already filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2022 in respect of part of the very same property and obtained order of temporary injunction against both the plaintiff and the defendant, certainly, it is an important aspect to be considered, but the same was not brought to the notice of the trial Court and was not considered. If separate suits are instituted, there would be conflicting views. In the absence of adequate pleadings, the findings of the trial Court were passed. If separate suits are instituted, there would be conflicting views. In the absence of adequate pleadings, the findings of the trial Court were passed. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioners in both the revision petitions shall be given an opportunity of filing additional affidavits in support of their petitions narrating the sequence of flow of title as per their interest in the disputed property and file necessary documents in support thereof. Every endeavour shall be made to adjudicate the matter on merits instead of merely concluding the one dispute before the Court in which event, if it is likely to trigger multiplicity of proceedings coupled with possibility of conflicting decisions, though it may cause a little amount of delay, the better approach must be to decide the matter on merits and finally resolve the dispute between the parties. Therefore, both the revision petitions are to be allowed. - 19. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed setting aside the order, dated 25.04.2022, in I.A.No.382 of 2021 and the order, dated 22.02.2025, in I.A.No.376 of 2022 in O.S.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allagadda. The petitioners are given liberty to file additional affidavits/documents in support thereof as indicated in the order. The trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the respondents to file additional counter, if any, and thereafter hear the matter afresh and decide the petitions without being influenced by any observations in this common order. There shall be no order as to costs. - Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.