Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 52 (TS)

Kum. v. Chandrakala VS V. Akhilesh

2025-02-18

K.SUJANA

body2025
COMMON ORDER: (K. Sujana, J.) C.R.P.No.1707 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.1156 of 2023 in O.S.No.108 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 2. C.R.P.No.1716 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.1155 of 2023 in O.S.No.109 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and C.R.P.No.1730 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.1154 of 2023 in O.S.No.107 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 3. The petitioner in all these revisions is one and the same and she filed the said interlocutory applications under Order I rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’) in all the three suits. For the sake of convenience the petitioner herein is referred to as Proposed defendant and the respondent as plaintiff in these revision petitions. 4. The petitioner herein who is the proposed defendant filed I.A.Nos.1156 of 2023, 1155 of 2023 and 1154 of 2023 seeking to implead her in the suits. She claims that her father, Late V. Papaiah, who is also the grandfather of plaintiff purchased the land in question and constructed a building on it. He executed a registered Will Deed on 20.08.2004, bequeathing the property to her. However, during his last days, Late V. Papaiah was bedridden, and the plaintiff allegedly took advantage of this situation, got a Registered Gift Settlement Deed executed in his favor vide document No.3818 of 2015, which the proposed defendant claims it as fraudulent. The proposed defendant has filed a separate suit to declare the said gift settlement deed as null and void. She claims that she is the rightful owner of the property and that the plaintiff is attempting to claim ownership under false pretenses. The proposed defendant also states that she rented the property to the defendants in the respective suits and that the rents are her only source of income. 5. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the petitions, stating that the registered gift deed executed in his favor makes him the absolute owner of the property. He claims that the Will Deed was revoked by the subsequent gift deed, and therefore, it is valid and binding on all the parties. 5. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the petitions, stating that the registered gift deed executed in his favor makes him the absolute owner of the property. He claims that the Will Deed was revoked by the subsequent gift deed, and therefore, it is valid and binding on all the parties. Hence, the proposed defendant has no locus standi and prayed to dismiss the said implead petitions. 6. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petitions stating that plaintiff has filed copy of the rental deed which was entered by him with the defendants in the respective suits and the proposed defendant did not file any document to show that she is the landlord and not the plaintiff and the persons against whom the suits are filed did not contest the suit, or filed written statement within time, as such, their right to file written statement was forfeited, which shows that the defendants therein did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant. As such, petitioner herein is not proper or necessary party and dismissed the said implead petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petitions are filed. 7. Heard Sri Shaik Chand Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the revision petitions and Sri S.N.Veerender Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff in all the revision petitions. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/proposed defendant is that the proposed defendant has filed a suit for cancellation of gift deed which is pending and the plaintiff with fabricated documents claiming right over the suit property and got injunction order in his favour by not impleading the proposed defendant in the eviction suit. Further, the plaintiff himself admitted that there is only an oral tenancy and there is no such document between the plaintiff and defendants to prove landlord and tenant relationship. If the proposed defendant is not impleaded in the eviction suit, it would cause grave prejudice to her and she will lose right over the tenant. Further, the plaintiff himself admitted that there is only an oral tenancy and there is no such document between the plaintiff and defendants to prove landlord and tenant relationship. If the proposed defendant is not impleaded in the eviction suit, it would cause grave prejudice to her and she will lose right over the tenant. The further contention of learned counsel for the proposed defendant is that proposed defendant is having Will deed to show that the property was bequeathed to her by way of Will deed by late Papaiah whereas, the respondent herein who is the grandson of Papaiah taking advantage of his situation, by playing fraud got registered Gift settlement deed and for cancellation of the same, the proposed defendant has already filed a suit vide O.S.No.46 of 2021. If proposed defendant is not impleaded in the eviction suit, she will lose her right over the property as the trial Court would declare the respondent/plaintiff as the landlord of the property. Furthermore, the defendants in respective suits did not file written statements denying the suit filed by the plaintiff and if the proposed defendant herein is impleaded in the suits, it will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. As such, prayed this Court to allow these revision petitions by impleading the proposed defendant in the respective suits. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that petitioner is not proper or necessary party to the suit for eviction. However, by virtue of the registered gift deed executed in his favour, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He further contended that the testator of a Will has every right to revoke the Will and to execute any document of his choice in favour of any person during his life time and as the gift deed was executed subsequent to the Will deed, the registered gift deed is a valid document and binding on the parties. As such prayed to dismiss these revision petitions. 10. Having gone through the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, it is noted that proposed defendant is claiming ownership over the suit property basing on the Will deed and the respondent/plaintiff is claiming property basing on the registered gift deed executed by late Papaiah. As such prayed to dismiss these revision petitions. 10. Having gone through the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, it is noted that proposed defendant is claiming ownership over the suit property basing on the Will deed and the respondent/plaintiff is claiming property basing on the registered gift deed executed by late Papaiah. Further, the present suits are filed for eviction of tenants wherein the defendants therein have not contested the suits nor filed written statements, therefore, their right to file written statements was forfeited by the trial Court. 11. Now, the point to be decided is whether the petitioner/proposed defendant is a proper or necessary party to the eviction suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff ? 12. The trial Court in the order observed that there is a document between the respondent/plaintiff and tenants in the respective suits to show the landlord and tenant relationship, whereas in the plaint filed by the plaintiff, it is stated that it is an oral tenancy on month to month tenancy. Further, in a suit for eviction the rent controller may not go into the title of the suit and it deals with the issue of on what ground the eviction suit was filed and whether the plaintiff proved the said grounds. In the present case, proposed defendant is claiming ownership, but she has not filed any document to show that she is the landlord and tenancy exists between proposed defendant and the tenants and no document is filed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenants. Though plaintiff is a dominus littis, he cannot file suit without making the proper party as a party to the present suits. In the present case, the proposed defendant is claiming right and interest basing on will deed in the suit property and to protect her right, she has to be impleaded in the suits for eviction. The petitioner being claiming right and title over the property who has also filed a suit for cancellation of gift deed, she is necessary and proper party to the suits. If petitioner is not impleaded in the suits, and the trial Court decrees the suits, it may effect the proposed defendant. Further the trial Court 13. The petitioner being claiming right and title over the property who has also filed a suit for cancellation of gift deed, she is necessary and proper party to the suits. If petitioner is not impleaded in the suits, and the trial Court decrees the suits, it may effect the proposed defendant. Further the trial Court 13. Accordingly, CRP.Nos.1716 of 2024, 1707 of 2024 and 1730 of 2024 are allowed setting aside the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.1155 of 2023 in O.S.No.109 of 2023, I.A.No.1156 of 2023 in O.S.No.108 of 2023, and I.A.No.1154 of 2023 in O.S.No.107 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The trial Court is directed to implead the proposed defendant as defendant in the said suits. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.