Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 782 (TS)

Nittu Indra Bai v. Nittu Pedda Balaiah

2025-06-09

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in IA.No.368 of 2023 in OS.No.5 of 2018, whereunder and whereby an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to implead the proposed respondent-Geedipally Ramchandra Reddy as defendant No.9 in the suit was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri Vijay B.Paropakari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The revision petitioner is plaintiff, respondent Nos.1 to 8 are defendant Nos.1 to 8, respectively, and respondent No.9 is the proposed defendant No.9 in the suit before the trial Court. 4. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.5 of 2018 for partition of the suit schedule property and for allotment of 1/6 th share to her and also for perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.6 to 8 from interfering with the suit schedule property; that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application in IA.No.368 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead one Geedipally Ramchandra Reddy, who according to plaintiff purchased an extent of 200 square yards in Sy.No.690 of the suit schedule property from father of defendant No.6, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.5865/2012, dated 13.08.2012, and also another extent of 200 square yards in Sy.No.690 of the suit schedule property from defendant No.6, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.7372/2015 dated 22.07.2015. It was further averred that since defendant No.6 executed sale deed without any manner of right or title and further, in the light of the order passed by the High Court cancelling the illegal pass books obtained by defendant No.6 and his father, the proposed defendant No.9 is a proper and necessary party to the suit and prayed the trial Court to allow the application. 5. The proposed defendant No.9 filed a counter and averred that he is the counsel for defendant Nos.6 to 8 in OS.No.5 of 2018 and also counsel for the said persons in O.S.Nos.16 and 17 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, which were filed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 against defendant Nos.6 to 8 and Labishetty Vishwanatham, the father of defendant Nos.6 to 8. He further averred that the plaintiff in the present suit-OS.No.5 of 2018 was impleaded as plaintiff No.7 in O.S.No.16 of 2013 and as plaintiff No.4 in OS.No.17 of 2013, which were filed by the mother, and brothers of the plaintiff, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the present suit-OS.No.5 of 2018. Therefore, the suit proceedings in OS.Nos.16 and 17 of 2013 are binding on the plaintiff as well as on defendant Nos.1 to 5. 6. The said suits-OS.Nos.16 and 17 of 2013 were filed for cancellation of judgments and decrees passed in the suits- OS.No.167 of 1987, dated 31.08.1987 and in OS.No.22 of 1987, dated 22.02.1987, which were decreed against Nittu Pedda Gangaram, who is husband of late Nittu Pedda Lingu Bai and father of defendant Nos.1 and 2, and Nittu Chinna Gangaram, who is husband of defendant No.3 and father of defendant Nos.4 and 5, in respect of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.14 guntas and Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.690. He further averred that the proposed party has purchased land admeasuring extents of 200 + 200 square yards, out of Ac.1.18 guntas out of total extent of Acs.4.05 guntas, under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.5865 of 2012 and 7372 of 2015 from the deceased father of defendant Nos.6 to 8 and defendant No.6, respectively, and by the time of the said purchases, no suits were pending. Subsequently, O.S.Nos.16 and 17 of 2013 were dismissed, vide judgment dated 12.10.2022 and no Appeal was preferred against the said judgment. He, therefore, averred that the present suit-OS.No.5 of 2018 is thus barred by resjudicata and as such, the same is not maintainable and that the impleadment application is filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive to protract the litigation and prayed to dismiss the application. 7. He, therefore, averred that the present suit-OS.No.5 of 2018 is thus barred by resjudicata and as such, the same is not maintainable and that the impleadment application is filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive to protract the litigation and prayed to dismiss the application. 7. Perusal of record would discloses that Nittu Pedda Gangaram and Nittu Chinna Gangaram appears to be joint owners of the property admeasuring Acs.4.15 guntas; that Nittu Pedda Gangaram sold an extent of Acs.0.20 gts in Sy.No.690 on 16.06.1972, Ac.0.12 gts and Ac.0.02 gts in Sy.No.690 on 05.11.1973 under agreement of sale to Labishetty Viswanatham and Labishetty Chandrasekhar, however, no regular sale deed was executed in their favour, as such, they filed suits in OS.Nos.22 and 167 of 1987 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and the said suits were decreed vide judgment and decrees dated 22.02.1987 and 31.08.1987 respectively, against Nittu Pedda Gangaram and Nittu Chinna Gangaram. O.S.Nos.16 and 17 of 2013 filed seeking to cancel the judgments and decrees in OS.Nos.22 and 167 of 1987 were dismissed and since no appeal is preferred challenging the said judgments, the decrees passed in OS.Nos.22 and 167 of 1987 have become final. 8. Basing on the said judgments, Labishetty Viswanatham and Labishetty Chandrasekhar approached M.R.O. for mutation of their names and the same was ordered; that challenging the same, the legal heirs of Nittu Pedda Gangaram filed Appeal before the R.D.O. and the said authority set aside the mutation proceedings issued by the MRO; that aggrieved thereby, a Revision was filed before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad and the said Revision was allowed, thereby, setting aside the orders of RDO and restoring the orders passed by MRO; that aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petition No.15130 of 2003 is filed and this Court, by taking into consideration the fact that procedure prescribed under the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act’) was not adhered to and no proper notices were issued to the parties therein, vide order dated 20.09.2013, disposed of the Writ Petition, setting aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad and remanded the matter back to the MRO to consider the application for mutation afresh following due process as prescribed under the ROR Act. 9. 9. Pursuant to order passed in WP.No.15130 of 2003, dated 20.09.2003, the Tahsildar, Kamareddy conducted enquiry and basing on records, sworn notarised affidavits dated 06.02.2014, and the joint application dated 31.01.2015 submitted by the legal representatives of Nittu Pedda Gangaram and Nittu Chinna Gangaram, he issued proceedings dated 10.08.2018, confirming the 13-B and 13-C Certificates issued in favour of Labishetty Vishwanatham and Labishetty Chandrasekhar, in respect of total land admeasuring 24 ½ guntas. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the legal representatives of Nittu Pedda Gangaram and Nittu Chinna Gangaram filed an appeal and ultimately, the said Appeal was dismissed on 01.07.2021. Assailing the same, WP.No.17064 of 2024 is filed and the same is pending. 10. The present suit is filed by the legal heirs of Labishetty Vishwanatham in respect of the suit schedule property, which is subject matter of suits-OS.Nos.22 and 167 of 1987 which were decreed against Nittu Pedda Gangaram and Nittu Chinna Gangaram. The suits-OS.Nos.16 and 17 of 2013 filed by the legal heirs of Nittu Pedda Gangaram and Nittu Chinna Gangaram, who are defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the present suit-OS.No.5 of 2018, seeking for cancellation of judgments and decrees passed in OS.Nos.22 and 167 of 1987 were dismissed and as such, the judgments and decrees passed in OS.Nos.22 and 167 of 1987 have become final and are binding against defendant Nos.1 to 5. 11. It is pertinent to note that an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.690 is subject matter of OS.No.22 of 1987 and Ac.0.14 guntas in Sy.No.690 is subject matter of OS.No.167 of 1987 filed by Labishetty Vishwanatham and Labishetty Chandrasekhar claiming the said land from Nittu Pedda Gangaram and Nittu Chinna Gangaram and both the suits were decreed by consent. Further, Nittu Pedda Gangaram sold an extent of Ac.0.11 guntas in favour of Labishetty Vishwanatham under unregistered sale deed dated 24.04.1976 and the same was regularised and 13-B Certificate was issued. Further, Nittu Peddda Gangaram sold an extent of Ac.0.13 ½ guntas in Sy.No.690 inf avour of Labishetty Chandrasekhar through unregistered saeld eed dated 13.06.1980 and the same was regularised and 13-B and 13-C Certificates were issued and the said Certificates were confirmed by Tahsildar, vide proceedings No.A2/1200/2015 dated 10.08.2018, pursuant to orders passed in WP.No.15130 of 2013. However, the said proceedings are under challenge in W.P.No.17064 of 2021 and the same is pending adjudication. However, the said proceedings are under challenge in W.P.No.17064 of 2021 and the same is pending adjudication. Thus, the total extent of land alienated by Nittu Pedda Gangaram in favour of Labishetty Vishwanatham and Labishetty Chandrasekhar under unregistered sale deeds comes to Ac.1.18 ½ guntas in Sy.No.690 and the same is subject matter of OS.No.5 of 2018 filed by the petitioners herein. 12. Prima facie, the record reveals that the lands were alienated long back by Nittu Pedda Gangaram and the same were confirmed in earlier suits and revenue proceedings and the proposed respondent has purchased two plots admeasuring 200 square yards each out of Ac.1.18 guntas, forming part of Sy.No.690, in the years 2012 and 2015 respectively. 13. From the above, it is clear that alienations are made by Nittu Pedda Gangaram in respect of Ac.0.34 gutnas of land, which is subject matter of suits-OS.Nos.16 and 17 of 2013, and the judgments rendered in the said suits have become final as there is no challenge to the same. Insofar as 24 ½ guntas is concerned, the alienations made by Nittu Pedda Gangaram and Nittu Chinna Gangaram were regularised in first round of litigation and WP.No.17014 of 2021 arising out of second round of litigation is pending. 14. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed respondent is not a necessary party to the suit for adjudication of the subject lis therein and as such, the application filed by the petitioner to implead the proposed respondent as defendant No.9 to the suit is devoid of any merit and is clear abuse of process of law. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application by the impugned order. This Court does not find any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 15. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. 16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.