Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1573 (TS)

Kalamma v. B. Ram Bai

2025-11-20

K.SUJANA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/proposed defendant Nos.4 and 5 aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.213 of 2025 in O.S.No.139 of 2015 by the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in I.A.No.213 of 2025. 2. I.A.No.213 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to implead them as proposed defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.139 of 2015. The suit in O.S.No.139 of 2015 was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 against respondents 4 to 6 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No.6 herein have filed O.S.No.14 of 2025 seeking cancellation of the Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.139 of 2015, and for delivery of possession. It is submitted that upon receipt of summons in O.S.No.14 of 2025, the petitioners herein made inquiries with respondents No.4 and 5, who are their vendors. During such inquiry, respondents No.4 and 5 informed them about the pendency of the above suit proceedings, the passing of the ex parte decree dated 08.06.2016, and the related proceedings before this Court. Thus, through the information furnished by respondents No.4 and 5, the petitioners came to know about filing of the above suit, whereupon they immediately engaged the present counsel who is also representing respondent Nos.4 and 5 before this Court in C.R.P. No. 2845 of 2017 and C.M.A. No. 6 of 2024. The present counsel is also appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein in O.S. No.14 of 2025 pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. 3. It is further stated that after coming to know about the present suit through the plaint proceedings in O.S. No.14 of 2025, the petitioners instructed their present counsel, who is appearing for them as well as for respondent Nos.4 and 5, to file the present petition. It is further submitted that O.S.No.139 of 2015 was initially decreed ex parte on 08.06.2016 against respondent Nos.4 to 6, notwithstanding the fact that respondent No.6 had died long prior to filing of the suit. It is further submitted that O.S.No.139 of 2015 was initially decreed ex parte on 08.06.2016 against respondent Nos.4 to 6, notwithstanding the fact that respondent No.6 had died long prior to filing of the suit. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 thereafter filed I.A. No.19 of 2017 under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT seeking condonation of delay of 195 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 08.06.2016, along with the petition to set aside the said ex parte decree. The trial Court, by order dated 19.01.2017, dismissed I.A.No.19 of 2017. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred C.R.P. No.2845 of 2017 and the same was allowed on 24.08.2023. Consequent thereto, I.A. No.62 of 2024 filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 08.06.2016 was dismissed on 10.06.2024. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred C.M.A. No.6 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Adilabad, and the said appeal was allowed by judgment dated 02.12.2024. Assailing the orders dated 02.12.2024 passed in C.M.A. No.6 of 2024, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred C.R.P. No.1449 of 2025 before this Court, and the said revision is pending adjudication. After allowing of C.M.A. No.6 of 2024, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed their written statements denying the claims and contentions of respondent Nos.1 to 3. They have specifically contended in their written statements that the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas was sold to the present petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2007 vide Document No.1489 of 2007 by respondent No.4; and similarly, agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas was sold to the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 08.10.2007 vide Document No.4451 of 2007 by respondent No.5. Further the petitioners have also purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 28.02.1996 vide Document No.473 of 1996 from respondent No.4. Respondent No.5, in order to meet her family necessities, alienated agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas out of Ac.4.34 guntas to petitioner No.1 under the registered sale deed dated 08.10.2007 and they were put in possession of the above lands by respondent Nos.4 and 5 from the date of execution of the respective sale deeds. Respondent No.5, in order to meet her family necessities, alienated agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas out of Ac.4.34 guntas to petitioner No.1 under the registered sale deed dated 08.10.2007 and they were put in possession of the above lands by respondent Nos.4 and 5 from the date of execution of the respective sale deeds. It is further submitted that the names of the petitioners were duly mutated in the revenue records, and their names have been reflected in the Pahanies from 2008-2009 onwards to an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas and Ac.2.00 guntas respectively. If the trial Court considers the claim of plaintiffs and cancels the registered sale deeds, it will cause prejudice to the present petitioners as they are the subsequent purchasers of the said lands. Hence, requested the trial Court to implead them as defendants to O.S.No.139 of 2015. 4. The respondents 1 to 3 filed written statement denying the averments of petition stating that the petitioners therein have not made out any case for impleading them in the suit and it is filed belatedly. Most of the averments and allegations contained in the supporting affidavit are false and baseless and petitioners came to know about the suit through O.S.No.14 of 2025 is not correct and the said suit is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, but in fact the said suit is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The contents of para 4 of the supporting affidavit with regard to passing of decree endeavour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein for setting aside the said decree and pending of matter before this Court are not disputed. The document Nos.1489 of 2007 and 4451 of 2007 are false and sham documents without consideration and no possession was delivered to the alleged purchasers. In fact they are in possession and they are the original owners of property. As such, requested the trial Court to dismiss the said petition. 5. After considering the submissions, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the averments in the petition mainly relate to the grievance arising from the judgment in O.S. No.14 of 2025, in which the petitioners were defendants and the legal representatives of respondent No.6 had filed the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte, and all proceedings in that suit were discussed in the present petition. The suit was decreed ex parte, and all proceedings in that suit were discussed in the present petition. It was further observed that petitioners had earlier filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with a delay condonation petition, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by that dismissal, they filed C.R.P. No.2825 of 2017, which was allowed, and thereafter they filed another petition. They also filed C.M.A. No.6 of 2024 and C.R.P. No.1449 of 2025, which are still pending. The trial Court held that the petitioners relyied mainly on the outcome of O.S.No.14 of 2025 without understanding the nature of the present suit. It further observed that the plaintiff, being the ‘dominus litis’, cannot be compelled to implead parties against his choice. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present revision petition is filed. 6. Heard Sri Venkatesh Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court without considering whether the petitioners are proper or necessary parties to the present suit, vaguely dismissed the petition. The petitioners herein are the lawful owners of the property, if the registered sale deed of the vendor of petitioners is cancelled it will cause prejudice to the petitioners herein. He further submitted that implead petition can be filed at any stage of the proceedings as petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings, without hearing them the issue cannot be adjudicated. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munirunnisa Begum and others vs. Pilli Mallaiah and others , 2024 (6) ALD 182 , wherein the relevant para reads as under : “19. It is apt to note that necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. Proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision. It is apt to note that necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. Proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision. The Intent of Legislature in bringing Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is where the parties failed to make any necessary and proper party as party to the proceedings, either due to ignorance or due to any other reason, it is for the Court to exercise its discretion under the said provision, so as to render full justice to the parties without expressing anything as to why it has not been done either by the parties or by the learned advocates as well. It enabies the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision.” 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no illegality in the order of trial Court and it has rightly dismissed the petition. The suit is filed in the year 2015 and the present petition is filed in the year 2025 without explaining any reasons for such huge delay. The present petition is filed only to delay the proceedings and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition as the document of vendors of petitioners itself is forged one petitioners cannot claim the property though their vendor. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this revision petition. 9. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the petitioners herein have filed a petition before trial Court alleging that they are the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule land for which the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of their vendor’s document itself, which is of the year 1996. The petitioners herein purchased the property in the year 2007. Subsequently, O.S.No.139 of 2015 was filed which was decreed ex parte. Against the said order, C.R.P, was filed which was allowed. Now the respondent Nos. The petitioners herein purchased the property in the year 2007. Subsequently, O.S.No.139 of 2015 was filed which was decreed ex parte. Against the said order, C.R.P, was filed which was allowed. Now the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are contesting the suit, if the parties herein are not added as defendants it will cause prejudice to them. However, the observation of the trial Court is that no reasons are explained by the petitioners herein except relying on the outcome of O.S.No.14 of 2025. While dealing with petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, the Court has to see whether the parties to the suit are proper or necessary for proper adjudication of the lis before the Court. According to the petitioners, they purchased the property from respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the year 2007 through registered sale deed. The petitioners herein are the purchasers of property through a registered document and the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of registered document of the petitioners herein. If the petitioners’ vendor document is cancelled, the petitioners would lose their property rights. Therefore, it is appropriate to hear the petitioners herein also. Hence, the impugned order is liable to he set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 15.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.213 of 2025 in O.S.No.139 of 2015 by the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad. The trial Court is directed to implead the petitioners herein as defendants to the suit. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.