Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Sathuluri John Saheb – Petitioner
Versus
Shaik Hussainpeera Rep.,By K.Srinivasa Rao & Others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.1733 Of 2013
Decided On : 30-04-2021
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Indian Limitation Act, 1877 - Specific Relief Act – Section 42 and 43 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I - Rule 10 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 – Implead of parties - Suit for permanent injunction - Transfer of Property – Claim of compensation - Whether it has been instituted in name of right plaintiff – Whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out and that name of any person who ought to have been joined - Whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before Court may be necessary in order to enable Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in suit be added - Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the plaint schedule property - Case of petitioner is that he filed on file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge basing on an agreement of sale executed by one as well as her endorsement thereon by receiving full consideration from petitioner and said suit was decreed - As petitioner purchased plaint schedule property petitioner is proper and necessary party to present suit - Present suit is filed by respondent No.1 only to cause wrongful loss to petitioner - Prayed Court to impaled him as a party to suit –
Finding of the Court;
If principles relating to impalement are kept in view then purported divergence in two decisions will be found to be non-existent - Observations are with reference to facts and circumstances of respective case - In this Court held that in suits for specific performance only parties to contract or any legal representative of a party to contract or a transferee from a party to contract are necessary parties - In this Court held that a person having semblance of a title can be considered as a proper party - Nor did lay down that no one other than parties to contract and their legal representatives transferees can be imp leaded even as a proper party - In light of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court a duty is cast upon Courts to take meticulous analysis while dealing with petitions under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to avoid adding of a party if it is intended merely as a ruse to ventilate certain other grievances of one or other of parties on record which is neither necessary or expedient to be considered by Court in pending litigation - In case on hand respondent No.1/plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against Government and when admittedly property belongs to Government presence of petitioner who claims to have purchased said property from one who has no saleable interest is not a necessary party for adjudicating dispute involved in case which is a bare injunction suit against Government –
Result: Civil revision petition is dismissed
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
ORDER :
The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the order dated 04.01.2013 passed in I.A.No.109 of 2012 in O.S.No.332 of 2011 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District whereby the petition filed by the proposed party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to implead himself as proper and necessary party was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are:
Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the plaint schedule property i.e. D.No.108/5 of Gunta Garlapadu village, Issapalem Gram Panchayat, Narasaraopet Mandal. The case of the petitioner is that he filed O.S.No.93 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet basing on an agreement of sale dated 17.07.2007 executed by one Shaik Meerabi as well as her endorsement thereon dated 24.04.2008 by receiving full consideration from the petitioner and the said suit was decreed on 27.07.2011. As the petitioner purchased the plaint schedule property from Shaik Meerabi the petitioner is proper and necessary party to the present suit. The present suit is filed by respondent No.1 only to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. Hence, prayed the Court to implead him as a party to the suit.
3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioner and stated that Shaik Meerabi is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and she has nothing to do with the same. The copies of documents filed by the petitioner shows that said Shaik Meerabi inherited the Ac.1-60 cents situated in D.No.108/5 whereas the contents of the judgment show that she occupied the said property in the year 1982. Further the said suit was filed between two private parties without adding Government as party though admittedly the land belongs to Government. Even if it is assumed that Shaik Meerabi got right over poramboke land, she has no saleable interest. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot get right title or interest over the subject property. The petitioner herein played fraud and obtained ex parte decree in respect of poramboke land by filing spurious documents. Further the properties on which the petitioner herein and respondent No.1/plaintiff are claiming rights are not one and the same. Respondent No.1/plaintiff being Ex-Serviceman applied for the said land for which D-form patta was issued and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising redgram and jowar crops. The revenue authorities have also issued title deed and pattadar passbook in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff and he is entitled to sell the same after ten years in view of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993. As respondents No.3 and 4 have been postponing to issue NOC for sale of the property and threatened to dispossess respondent No.1/plaintiff he filed the suit for permanent injunction. Only with an in ill intention the petitioner herein came up with this petition and he is not a bonafide purchaser as such he cannot claim any rights over the property.
4. The Court below dismissed the said petition holding that the petitioner is not a necessary party as it is only a suit for injunction against the Government and there is no interference by the petitioner at any point of time over the suit schedule property and after obtaining decree he did not take any steps to get a regular sale deed. It was also observed that mere agreement of sale executed between the petitioner and Shaik Meerabi will not create any title or interest or charge on such property as claimed by him as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Aggrieved by the same the proposed party is before this Court.
5. Heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the proposed party and Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
