A party with an interest in the property is a necessary party in a partition suit to ensure just adjudication and prevent collusive decrees.

ORDER :

B.S.BHANUMATHI, J.

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.04.2025 dismissing I.A.No.227 of 2023 in O.S.No.61 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed by the third party/ revision petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and Rule 28 of CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE to implead him as defendant No.5 in the suit.

2. The respondents No.1 to 3 filed the suit against the respondents No.4 to 7 seeking partition of Ac.4.56 cents of land in Sy.No.1274/B of Nannuru Village, Orvakal Mandal, Orvakal Sub- division, Kurnool Division, Kurnool District bounded by the following boundaries:

East : Agricultural land in Sy.No.1287.

West : Agricultural land in Sy.No.1274.

North : Agricultural land in Sy.No.1274/ C.

South : Open plots of D-2 venture.

3. Pending the suit, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.227 of 2023 to get himself impleaded. It has to be noted that pending the enquiry in I.A.No.227 of 2023, the respondent No.1/ plaintiff No.1 died. As such, the respondents No.8 to 10 were added as legal representatives.

4. The petitioner contended briefly as follows:

a. The plaint schedule property originally belongs to Pinjari Hussain Sab who is grandfather of plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. Pinjari Hussain Sab had agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4.56 cents in Sy.No.1274/B and Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.1274/D of Nannur Village called as “Gattuchenu Morsu” in two parts i.e., eastern and northern parts. Pinjari Hussain Sab died intestate leaving his wife and two sons. After his death, his wife (Smt. Hussainamma) and two sons i.e., Somanna @ D.Nannuru Swamulu (father of the defendant No.1) and Jalal Sab (father of the plaintiffs), succeeded the estates of Pinjari Hussain Sab, sold Ac.9.06 Cents under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.521/1956, dated 31.05.1956 to Balanna, S/o Kistapuram Boya Ramanna within the following boundaries:

East : Lands belong to Boyapalle Veera Reddy and Konda Reddy.

West : Land belongs to Mandla Seshanna.

North : Boundary (dande) belongs to Pinjari Hasamma’s land.

South : Lands belong to Kottamasum Devaiah and Mandla Seshanna.

b. The plaint schedule property is within the above said boundaries. As such, instead of mentioning the names of the land owners, the plaintiffs got mentioned the survey numbers as the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. At the time of the execution of the sale deed dated 31.05.1956, instead of mentioning the above two survey numbers in which the total extent of land i.e., Ac.9.06 Cents was situated, inadvertently, only Sy.No.1274/ D was mentioned. Taking advantage of the same, the suit was filed. At no point of time for more than 65 years, the plaintiffs have ever enjoyed the property or challenged the sale deed. The total extent of land in Sy.No.1274/D is Ac.11.06 Cents. Mandla Seshanna got Ac.6.56 cents in the said survey number. The remaining eastern part of the land of Ac.4.50 cents was in possession and enjoyment of Hussain Sab. Balanna died intestate on 02.05.1999 leaving his wife Mandla Pedda Ayyamma and others as his legal heirs and they were in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of Ac.9.06 Cents spread in the above said two survey numbers. They executed a registered G.P.A.–cum–sale agreement vide Doc.No.920/2007, dated 09.07.2007 in favour of Pesala Shobha Rani for Ac.8.06 Cents i.e., (i) Ac.4.56 Cents in Sy.No.1274/B and (ii) Ac.3.50 Cents in Sy.No.1274/D authorizing her to deal with the said property on their behalf. In the capacity of regist