2002 Supreme(AP) 1096

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.K.PRASAD
M.Kuppuswami Naidu - Appellant
Versus
V.Chandrasekhar Reddi - Respondent
Decided On : 09-17-02

Headnote:

Civil Law – Civil Matter - Civil Revision Petitions – Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - order 1 and Rule 10, O. 22 - Plaintiff is represented by his power of attorney holder - Plaintiff filed suit seeking division of plaint schedule land into four equal shares and to allot 1/4th share to plaintiff and to put him in separate possession of same - Permanent injunction is also claimed restraining others from changing physical features of land - Plaintiff has also claimed some other reliefs - During pendency of suit, Plaintiff died and therefore mutt is succeeded by another Person - Power of attorney holder presented suit on behalf of previous Matadhipathi - Succeeding Matadhipathi filed an application to implead him as successor Matadhipathi - It is alleged by him that power of attorney has been revoked by previous Matadhipathi and that power of attorney holder has played fraud and that power of attorney comes to an end soon after death of person who executed same - It is also stated that power of attorney holder has sold away property of mutt without any authority and played fraud over mutt - It appears that said Narasimha Reddy has sold away some properties and purchasers have filed I. A claiming rights in suit property and wanted to be impleaded as successors after death of Matadhipathi - Contended by learned counsel for petitioners that subsequent purchasers from power of attorney holder are not necessary and proper parties - In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision reported - Relevant portions of said judgment are as under;"having regard to respective contentions, question that arises for consideration is whether respondents are necessary or proper parties to suit - It cannot be disputed that foundation for exclusive right, title and interest in property, subject-matter of suit, is founded upon registered Will executed mother of appellant - Trial court noted that in a suit filed on a previous occasion by appellant, will was propounded as basis for an exclusive right, title and interest in said property – Held, Court view of fact that they have got an adverse interest - In court view of matter, succeeding mahanth alone can be allowed to continue suit while others have to be impleaded as defendants, so that they may make claims against matadhipathi or mutt - Court considered view that they cannot be added as co-plaintiffs and can be added as only defendants - It is also contended that power of attorney holder who sold property is not a party to suit and therefore vendors can have only separate cause of action - Be that as it may, supreme Court has categorically stated that one of objects, which should be kept in mind while exercising power under order 1 Rule 10 CPC is avoiding of multiplicity of proceedings - Purchasers to be driven to file separate suits and they can be impleaded as parties - Court find that subordinate Judge at Tirupathi has rightly given a finding that petitioners are necessary and proper parties. But, he went wrong by directing succeeding matadhipathi to be impleaded as 81st respondent - He ought to have impleaded him as successor plaintiff matadhipathi - Insofar as other proposed persons are concerned, they are liable to be impleaded only as defendant - Lower Court has committed a manifest error in ordering successor mahant to be impleaded as 81st defendant whereas allowing purchasers as plaintiffs as well as the power of attorney agents - Hence, a modified order is liable to be passed in this case - On strength of material and principles laid down by aforesaid decisions, successor matadhipathi is entitled to be impleaded as plaintiff whereas all others purchasers are liable to be impleaded as defendants - Insofar as validity of power of attorney and its revocability and conduct of power of attorney agent and his right to alienate properties and title of those purchasers are relegated to trial - Order of impleading purchasers as parties to suit is confirmed - Insofar as arraying them as plaintiffs is concerned, succeeding matadhipathi is ordered to be arrayed as plaintiff whereas all others are permitted to be impleaded as defendants - Lower court shall permit parties to carry out amendments in t light of orders passed in these revision petitions - Civil Revision petitions Allowed.