Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 1622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Chinta Srinivasa Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Mangena Sree Rama Rao – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1554 of 2019
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Revision Petition - The sole defendant challenged the trial Court's dismissal of his application to implead additional parties in a suit for refund of money paid for property he claimed to own. The learned trial Court concluded the proposed parties were neither necessary nor proper for the suit proceeding. (Paras 5, 10, 15)
(B) Necessary and Proper Parties - A necessary party is one whose presence is essential for the effective adjudication of the case. A proper party is not essential but will enable comprehensive adjudication. The court emphasized the distinction in evaluating the impleadment request. (Paras 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought the return of Rs.23,45,520/- paid to the defendant under a possessory agreement, which the defendant failed to honor as the property was previously encumbered. The dispute centered on whether the defendant had valid title to the property. (Paras 6, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial Court's finding that the exclusion of proposed parties did not impede justice or decision-making, as the case rests mainly on the transactions and agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant. (Paras 10, 15)
Issues: The core issue was whether the proposed parties were necessary or proper for adjudicating the dispute regarding the refund. (Paras 5, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the proposed vendors could provide testimony, they did not possess a direct stake in the monetary dispute between the original parties, nor were they essential for decision-making. (Paras 15)
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impleadment of necessary parties in a suit (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. background on the property and claims for refund (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the necessity of parties (Para 10 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. position on the validity of previous awards (Para 11 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion on dismissal of the petition (Para 16) |
ORDER :
(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.)
Sole defendant in the suit filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 29.03.2019 of learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram in I.A.No.486 of 2019 in O.S.No.88 of 2015. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the sole defendant for his prayer to implead eight individuals as defendants in the suit.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.88 of 2015.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents resisting the petition.
4. Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for respondents submitted arguments.
5. The point that falls for consideration is:
"Whether the proposed parties are necessary or proper parties for their impleadment as defendants in O.S.No.88 of 2015 and the learned trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it and the impugned order occasioned injustice requiring interference?"
POINT:
6. O.S.No.88 of 2015 was filed by plaintiffs as against defendant seeking for refund of Rs.23,45,520/- along with 24% interest per annum and for costs and such other reliefs. A schedule is appended to the plaint describing the immovable property in an extent of 710.74 square yards in R.S.No.234 situate in Rayalam Village of Bhimavaram Mandal of West Godavari District. The allegations in the plaint are that the sole defendant in the suit claimed to be the exclusive owner of the plaint schedule property and believing that plaintiffs agreed to purchase the same and as a consequence the defendant executed a registered possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 14.03.2014 and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.16,51,000/- from the plaintiffs and delivered possession of the property to the plaintiffs. In the plaint it is stated that the defendant claimed his title by virtue of registered sale deed dated 08.05.2013 executed by Smt.Ungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani represented by her GPA holder Salsar Developers. It is under that title stating that he would convey a title free from encumbrances he executed the earlier mentioned registered possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaint further states that plaintiffs came to know that the property that was sought to be sold to the plaintiffs was already subjected to an earlier alienation made by Smt.Ungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani to Sri Thota Krishna Murthy under a registered sale deed dated 28.09.2010 and the said Thota Krishna Murthy mortgaged it with IDBI Bank. Therefore, the registered sale deed dated 08.05.2013 executed by Smt.Ungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani in favour of the defendant did not convey any valid title to the defendant. It is in the above referred context of facts plaintiffs in the presence of two others demanded the defendant to refund the money he received from the plaintiffs and he initially agreed to do it but thereafter refused to comply with it. In such circumstances, on the written information lodged by the plaintiffs, Crime No.294 of 2015 was registered against the defendant by Bhimavaram I Town Police Station. The present suit is filed for refund of the money they paid to the defendant along with interest and damages.
7. Plaint further alleges that acting upon the possessory agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney executed by the defendant in favour of these plaintiffs, the plaintiffs sold the plaint schedule property to Sri Vegesna Venkata Narasimha Raju under a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2014 and to Smt.Vegesna Eswaramma un
