Impleading a party to decide the cause raised in the suit is essential when the party's claim is necessary to address the issues concerning possession of the property.

ORDER :

1. Plaintiffs in the suit filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They assail the order dated 23.03.2020 of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram in I.A.No.112 of 2020 in O.S.No.32 of 2019. By the impugned order, a third party was impleaded in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The said third party is shown as respondent No.1. The original defendant in the suit is shown as respondent No.2.

2. Sri P.Rajesh Babu, the learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri G.Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel representing Sri Chakkilam Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, submitted arguments.

3. Point that falls for considerations is:

“Whether the impugned order cannot be maintained being against facts and law and caused miscarriage of justice?”

POINT:

4. Ac.2.40 cents of land in D.No.2-237 situate in R.S.No.378/1A2 and 378/1A3 of Palacherla Village of Diwancheruvu Panchayat in Rajanagaram Mandal of East Godavari District is the property about which the litigation commenced. Four plaintiffs joined together and filed O.S.No.32 of 2019 as against Smt. Erugula Mariya showing her as the sole defendant. Cause of action mentioned in the suit reads as below:

“Cause of action for the suit arose on 23.10.2002 when the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule property and thereafter when they constructed structures therein and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and since about a week when the defendant started to interfere with such peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and at Diwancheruvu where the plaint schedule property is situate is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”

5. The prayer in the suit reads as below:

1. For grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2. For grant of any other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; and

3. For grant of costs of the suit.

6. Shorn of details, the plaintiffs assert possession based on title acquired under various registered sale deeds of the year 2002. To sustain the claim of possession they also pleaded about a fact that they earlier leased out a part of this property to a company and subsequently after filing a suit for eviction they got a decree in their favour and they also filed execution petition to obtain possession of the property and finally on a joint memo of decree holder and judgment debtor possession of the property was once again delivered to these plaintiffs and the same were recorded by the executing Court. Thus, in the suit for permanent injunction the plaintiffs asserted their continuous possession based on title.

7. Sole defendant Smt. Erugula Mariya filed a ten page detailed written statement. She denied the title and possession asserted in the plaint. She claimed possession over Ac.1.00 cents of the plaint schedule property and construction of cattle shed by her and denied the existence of structures mentioned in the plaint. This Ac.1.00 cents is stated to be a part of the plaint schedule property. She had not laid any claim against the balance extent of the plaint schedule property. In her written statement she traced events from 1926. Finally, she stated that Sri Kandula Veera Raghava Swamy Naidu became owner of property in the said survey number and on 03.11.2006 he executed an agreement for sale in favour of this defendant agreeing to sell Ac.1.00 cents of his land and she paid part of the sale consideration and before the registered sale deed was obtained, the vendor/executant died. That the deceased was survived his wife Smt. Kandula Satyavathi and a son by name Sri Kandula Babu Rayudu. She narrated about further transactions between her and the above two individuals and stated that on 30.10.2013 the legal representatives of the late executant of agreement for sale put this defendant in poss