Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1095 (TS)

Akula Laxman Rao v. A Manoj Kumar

2025-09-24

RENUKA YARA

body2025
Order: Renuka Yara, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 in I.A.No.885 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Medak. 2. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sathvik Makunur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/implead petitioners. 3. A petition vide I.A.No.885 of 2023 was filed by the respondents/implead petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC to implead them as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the main suit i.e. O.S.No.31 of 2023. The main suit is filed for specific performance of Memorandum of understanding dated 14.05.2015 and Agreement of sale dated 14.05.2015 and consequential declaration that the sale deed document bearing No.2491 of 2018 is null and void. Upon considering the merits of the case of respondents, the petition was allowed i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 are impleaded as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the main suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred. 4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the learned Trial Court did not examine whether the proposed parties i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 were proper and necessary parties for adjudication of a suit for specific performance of Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015. It is further contended that an effective decree can be passed even in the absence of respondent Nos.1 to 3 against whom no relief is sought. The controversy is only between the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 7, between whom the Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015 are executed. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not parties to the Memorandum of understanding or Agreement of sale. Further, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not interested parties and are completely third parties. It is further pleaded that the parties who are claiming independent title and possession adverse to that of possession of vendor cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance by increasing the scope of enquiry into a suit for declaration of the title of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the parties who are claiming independent title and possession adverse to that of possession of vendor cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance by increasing the scope of enquiry into a suit for declaration of the title of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court has believed the version of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the suit schedule property was undivided share of Madhav Rao, Srinivas Rao and Padma Rao by failing to consider that the averments of the title of the vendor does not come under the purview of suit for specific performance. The learned Trial Court according to the revision petitioner erred in coming to conclusion that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are having an interest in the property and that they are proper and necessary parties. It is dominus litus pleaded that the plaintiff is the and the learned Trial Court cannot allow the respondent Nos.1 to 3 be arrayed as parties and compel the revision petitioner/plaintiff to agitate against them, against whom he does not want to contest/agitate. On the basis of aforementioned grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 5. During arguments in revision, the learned counsel for the dominus litus revision petitioner contended that the plaintiff is in a suit for specific performance and he has a right to choose against dominus whom he wishes to contest the suit. It is argued that the litus should not be compelled to agitate against the parties against whom he does not want to contest. Further, it is pleaded that in a suit for specific performance, others who are not parties to the Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale both dated 14.05.2015 are not necessary parties and therefore, the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the implead petition. In this regard, the learned counsel for revisions petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cort of India in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others , [ (2005) 6 SCC 733 ] , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the only question of whether in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract, claiming to have an independent title and possession over the contracted property, is entitled to be added as a defendant in the said suit. In that regard, the twin test that are to be satisfied are with regard to the question of who is a necessary party and who is a proper party. A proper party is one whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the controversies involved in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale. It is held that a third party or stranger to the contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit filed for one agreement into a suit for different agreement. It is also held that in a suit for specific dominus litus performance of contract for sale, the cannot be forced to contest against whom he does not want to contest unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law. 6. While so, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 argued that a collusive suit is filed without the knowledge of respondent Nos.1 to 3 with respect to property in whom the rights of the owners are not yet decided. It is argued that the Agreement of sale and the Memorandum of understanding are executed in respect of the property in which other owners have a share and the property is not partitioned allotting specific share of the respective owners. Therefore, in case any decree is passed, the same cannot be executed as the property of the parties is not yet demarcated within the total extent of land. As such, to bring the true facts before the Court for proper adjudication of a suit for specific performance where the original defendants do not have any right over specific piece of land, it is pleaded that the impleadment of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is necessary. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the revision petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent Nos.4 to 7 with respect to property which is subject matter of registered sale deed dated bearing document No.22183 of 2013, dated 30.12.2013 wherein the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein along with one Akula Lalitha executed the said sale deed in favour of respondent No.4 for sale of property which is open plot admeasuring 605 sq.yds., in Sy.No.8/A3 bounded by North: Sangareddy road, South: Vasavi hotel, East: Hyderabad road and West: Land of Padma Rao. The Memorandum of understanding dated 14.05.2015 executed between the revision petitioner and respondent No.4 shows the schedule as open plot in Sy.No.8/A3 admeasuring 255 sq.yds., bounded by North: Land belongs to the vendor 350 sq.yds., in Sy.No.8/A3, South: Vasavi hotel, East: Hyderabad road and West: Land of Padma Rao. The Agreement of sale dated 14.05.2015 executed by respondent No.4 in favour of revision petitioner is with respect to land admeasuring 255 sq.yds., with boundaries on North: Land belongs to the vendor 350sq.yds. in Sy.No.8/A3, South: Vasavi Hotel, East: Hyderabad road and West: Land of Padma Rao. The Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 18.08.2015 is executed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and their father Late Akula Madhava Rao in favour of respondent No.4 with respect to land consisting of 500 sq.yds., in Sy.No.8/3 out of total extent of Ac.0.19 Gts., situated at Narsapur villag and Grampanchayat, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District with boundaries on North:Sangareddy to Toopran P.W.D.Road, South: Neighbours open place, East: Land belongs to M. Rama Rao and West: Open land in Sy.No.8/3 belongs to M. Srinivas and others. 8. In view of the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession dated 18.08.2015, the respondent Nos.1 to 3/implead petitioners are claiming to have an interest in the property which is subject matter of the documents on which the specific performance is sought i.e., Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015. 9. There is an issue about the non-payment of total sale consideration by respondent Nos.4 to 7 and due to non- payment, the Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015 were executed for re-convey of 255 sq.yds., in favour of the revision petitioner. When the same was not done, the suit for specific performance was filed whereas the contention of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that as per sale deed dated 30.12.2013, the entire sale consideration was paid. As per recitals at Page No.2 of the sale deed, total sale consideration of Rs.18,15,000/- is paid. Therefore, according to respondent Nos.1 to 3/implead petitioners, non-payment of sale consideration leading to entering of Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015, are false and therefore, to present the true facts, their presence is necessary. 10. As per recitals at Page No.2 of the sale deed, total sale consideration of Rs.18,15,000/- is paid. Therefore, according to respondent Nos.1 to 3/implead petitioners, non-payment of sale consideration leading to entering of Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015, are false and therefore, to present the true facts, their presence is necessary. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the point to be considered for impleading anybody as a party to a suit is whether their presence is necessary for adjudication of the case and passing a decree. The subject matter of the suit for specific performance is 255 sq.yds. of land in Sy.No.8/A3 situated at Narsapur Village and Mandal, Medak District, which is also figured as part of the Development Agreement-cum-GPA with possession executed in favour of respondent No.4. According to respondent Nos.1 to 3, a collusive suit is filed to deprive their rights under the Development Agreement. Whereas, according to revision petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 7, the implead petitioners are not a party to the Memorandum of understanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015 and therefore, they cannot be impleaded as parties as they are not parties to the contract. There are well settled principles that the scope of suit for specific performance cannot be enlarged by dominus litus converting it into a suit for title and that a cannot be forced to contest a suit against a party against whom he does not wish to contest. Further, when a third party interest is involved and any judgment and decree that is passed in a suit for specific performance is likely to effect the interest of such other party who has an interest in the subject property can be impleaded as a party to the suit. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 183 has discussed about the scope of Order 1, Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC as being similar and held that the Court is required to record a finding with regard to the person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party. Further, this Court in Munirunnisa Begum alias Muneer Hyder and another v. Pilli Mallaiah and others , [2025 (1) ALT 145] has held that it is discretionary to grant a relief under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC and in exercising the direction, the court will take into account the wishes of the plaintiff before adding a third person as defendant to his suit and also if the court finds that addition of the new defendant is necessary to enable it to adjudicate effectively and completely the matter in controversy between the parties, it will add a person as a defendant even without the consent of the plaintiff. It is further held that if the party claims interest over the particular property or proceedings, the court has to add them as parties. 12. In the instant case, under the Development Agreement- cum-General Power of Attorney with possession, dated 18.08.2015, the interest of respondent Nos.1 to 3/implead petitioners is likely to be effected by the outcome of the suit for specific performance. Further, the presence of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is necessary to bring forth the actual facts before the Court for granting the relief of specific performance as well as execution of a decree. Therefore, this Court does not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial court. As such, there are no merits in the Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Medak, in I.A.No.885 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2023, dated 19.06.2024. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.