Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Korretla Lakshmi – Appellant
Vs.
Pentakota Sriramulu and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1526 of 2024
Decided On : 17-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Gopala Krishna
For the Respondent: Ashok Ram V. and V. Raja Manohar
A party with a legitimate interest in the subject matter of a suit must be included to ensure proper adjudication, as per Article 227 and Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order I Rule 10 - Civil revision petition against the rejection of an application for impleadment as a necessary party in a suit - The petitioner claims ownership through inheritance and possession of the property in question - The court finds that the trial court failed to consider the implications of a previous award and decree involving the petitioner's father, which necessitates the petitioner's inclusion in the suit. (Paras 2, 14, 17)
(B) Necessary Party - The court emphasizes that a party with a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the suit must be included to ensure proper adjudication - The trial court's reasoning that the suit is merely for injunction and that plaintiffs can choose their opponents is flawed. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the heir of the property owner, sought to be impleaded in a suit where the plaintiffs sought to declare a previous award void and obtain a permanent injunction against the defendant. The trial court rejected the application, stating the petitioner was not a necessary party.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court did not consider the relevance of the previous award and decree involving the petitioner's father, which warranted the petitioner's inclusion in the suit.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit given the claims of ownership and the implications of previous legal proceedings involving the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court's rejection of the application for impleadment was incorrect as it failed to consider the legal implications of the previous award and the necessity of including all interested parties for a fair trial.
Result: The impugned order is set aside, and the trial court is directed to reconsider the application for impleadment.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri P. Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Ashok Ram, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2.
2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved from the Order dated 08.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.279 of 2024 in O.S.No.367 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, by which, the petitioner's said application for his impleadment as defendant No.2 in the suit has been rejected.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and 3rd respondent is the defendant in the said suit No.367 of 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father was the owner of the plaint schedule property and as such, the petitioner is a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit, her father having died, and the petitioner being in possession and enjoyment of the said property. He further submitted that permanent injunction cannot be granted against true owner and so without impleading the petitioner, true owner, the suit has been filed against defendant/3rd respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that previously O.S.No.1441 of 2014 was filed by the 3rd respondent against Parupudi Venkata Ramana, father of the petitioner. The same ended in an award, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, passed in L.S.A.No.668 of 2014, dated 02.09.2014 at District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam, in which both parties, petitioner's father and the 3rd respondent agreed for the terms of the compromise. The award was passed accordingly in terms of the compromise as mentioned in the award.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 further submitted that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 & 2 filed O.S.No.183 of 2017 based on a tripartite agreement to sell dated 13.09.2012 by the petitioner's father, in which the petitioner's father was the defendant No.1. The petitioner was also defendant No.9 in the said suit. O.S.No.183 of 2017 was decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.04.2018, directing the defendants therein to execute registered sale deed as per the terms of tripartite agreement dated 13.09.2012 within the specified time on payment of balance of the sale consideration, and if they failed to execute the regular registered sale deed by receiving amounts, it was provided that the plaintiffs were at liberty to obtain regular registered sale deed executed through Court. The said decree was modified/amended as per Order dated 27.06.2018 in I.A.No.1034 of 2018. The modified decree, inter alia, provided that the plaintiffs became absolute owners.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 that the decree dated 30.04.2018 was not put to execution. The sale deed pursuant to the decree originally passed on 30.04.2018 was neither executed by the defendant in the said suit nor it was got executed through Court. He submitted that the payment of the balance of the sale consideration, as directed by the decree, in proportionate share of the present petitioner was paid to her. He further submitted that in view of the amended/modified decree dated 27.06.2018, the plaintiffs of the said suit who are also the plaintiffs of the suit O.S.No.367 of 2023, became absolute owners.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 further submitted that in either case i.e., if the L.S.A.No.668 of 2014, award passed in O.S.No.1441 of 2014, or the decree passed in O.S.No.183 of 2017, is considered, the present petitioner has no role to play in O.S.No.367 of 2023 for being impleaded in this suit. At the most either the defendant/3rd respondent would be the owner or the plaintiffs/respondents 1 & 2 would be the owners. The petitioner is not necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the suit. The order impugned is perfectly legal and justified.
9. Learned counsel for the petitione
