ORDER:
This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 21.11.2019, in I.A.No.727 of 2019 in O.S.No.103 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District filed under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 6/ plaintiffs to implead the petitioners/ third parties as the defendants to the suit so as to permit them to defend their case.
2. The petitioners herein are the third parties to the suit. The respondents 1 to 6 herein are the plaintiffs; respondents 7 to 22 herein are the defendants 1 to 16 in the suit.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2008 declaring the plaintiffs 2 to 4 title to the suit property and for consequential relief directing all the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 after removing the illegal thatched pendals in the plaint schedule land and for mesne profits therein. In the said suit, the third parties filed the application to implead them as the defendants to the suit. The trial court dismissed the said application on the ground that it is a cooked up story between the family members of the 12thdefendant and these petitioners. Assailing the same, the present Revision came to be filed.
2
4. Heard Sri N. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners/ third parties and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.
5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the trial court ought to have seen that whether there is any interest in the suit property to the petitioners to see that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Whereas the petitioners have purchased an extent of Ac. 0.25 cents in Sy.No.146 of Alluru Village, through Agreement of sale and there is Tobacco Barron constructed by the father of the 3rdpetitioner and the same was sold by the petitioners to the 18threspondent. Mere selling of the Tobacco Barron would not take away entire rights in the property and the petitioners cannot be said that they are not necessary and proper parties to the suit as the rights in Barron is different from rights in the land. Therefore the present revision came to be filed.
6. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the 12thdefendant in the suit, who is the contestant is none other than the son-in-law of the 1stpetitioner and husband of the 2ndpetitioner. They intentionally suppressed the relationship of their family, with the consent of 12thdefendant has filed the application only to drag on the proceedings and in fact they have no any interest over the suit schedule property and that they are not liable to be impleaded in the suit proceedings.
3
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 placed reliance on the Judgment in
"Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others"1wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"5…. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/ or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shal be at the risk of the plaintiffs….."
8. So also relied on a case in "Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited through Director Vs. State of Haryana and Another"2wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"19. Any contract of sale (agreement of sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered
4
instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest of charge on its subject -matter".
9. Perused the record.
10. As could be seen from the impugned order of the trial court that the application is filed as if their father D. Kotaiah purchased an extent of Ac. 0.25 cents from Chalamaiah, Advocate, who in turn purchased the said property from father of the 1st defendant in the suit. It is further contended by the respondents that whatever the document through which the implead petitioners are relying is an agreement of sale, thereby they cannot confer with absolute rights. The trial court upon perusal of the documents of it is an agreement of sale executed by Lakshmi Narayana on 11.01.1983 in favour of Chalamaiah, wherein it is clear that he is ready to execute registered sale deed in favour of Chalamaiah as and when it was demanded by him.
11. As could be seen from the application, whatever the property purchased by father of the 3rdpetitioner does not confer any rights in view of the execution of agreement of sale by his vendor in his favour, wherein he does not confer any absolute rights. Further, his vendor himself is not having any right to transfer the property to D.Kotaiah. Once the tabaco barren, which is constructed in Ac. 0.25 cents was sold by the petitioners to 18th respondent, then the question of keeping right over the said
5
property does not arise and that the trial court dismissed the application.
12. In Sudhamayee Pattnaik's case cited supra, it is very clear that not impleading any other person as defendants against wish of the plaintiffs shall be at risk of plaintiffs. Thus subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in application submitted by the proposed third parties as against the wish of the plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court opined that there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the trial court has given proper reasons by taking into consideration of the facts on record properly. The court below has dealt the issue in a right perspective and hence the order impugned requires no interference of this Court.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of both the counsel, the C.R.P is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________________
DR.K.MANMADHA RAO, J
Date: 08.08.2023.
KK
6
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.R.P.No.1143 of 2023
Date: 08.08.2023.
KK