Parties holding agreements of sale may join partition suits to assert equitable claims, even if earlier applications regarding those sales were dismissed.

ORDER :

R Raghunandan Rao, J.

Heard Sri P. Veerraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

2. The petitioners herein are the children of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners filed O.S.No.29 of 2019 before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for partition of the properties described in the schedule to the suit. The case of the petitioners was that the suit schedule property was joint family property and should be split into three parts, one part being allotted to the petitioners and one part each being allotted to respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The suit is said to have been filed on the ground that the petitioners had come to know that the 2^nd respondent was proposing to sell away the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. The 2^nd respondent filed a written statement denying these allegations. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent filed I.A.No.615 of 2019 for filing an additional written statement. In this additional written statement, the 2^nd respondent sought to bring on record an agreement of sale said to have been entered into with the 3^rd respondent herein. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.08.2023. This application was dismissed by the trial Court, on the ground that the 2^nd respondent, having denied any intention to sell the property, in her written statement, cannot be permitted to come up with a contradictory plea that she had already entered into an agreement of sale with the 3^rd respondent.

4. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent moved I.A.No.834 of 2023 contending that she had entered into an agreement of sale, dated 09.02.2018, for purchasing the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint for a consideration of Rs.3,36,87,500/- and that he had paid Rs.2,20,00,000/- out of this sale consideration. The 3^rd respondent contended that despite these payments, the 2^nd respondent delayed receiving the remaining consideration and executing a registered sale deed on the ground that a suit had been filed against her, by her children and that an order of injunction had also come to be passed against her in I.A.No.60 of 2019 on 22.03.2019. The 3^rd respondent stated that the 2^nd respondent had also informed him that she had filed C.M.A.No.503 of 2019 against the order of injunction and the same came to be dismissed on 17.02.2020. The 3^rd respondent further contended that the petitioners and the 1^st respondent had convinced the 2^nd respondent to repudiate the agreement of sale and for such purpose, had filed O.S.No.29 of 2019, as a collusive suit, to deny the rights of the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent also stated that he had filed O.S.No.788 of 2022 before the II Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar for specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 09.02.2018, and the same is pending. Further she also averred that she had obtained an injunction restraining alienation of the property, vide order, dated 26.12.2022, in I.A.No.1288 of 2022. The 3^rd respondent, on the basis of these averments and the averment that he is in possession of the said property, moved the above I.A.No.834 of 2023 to implead himself as a defendant in the suit.

5. This application was opposed by the petitioners. The basic contention raised in defense was that the trial Court had already rejected the attempt of the 2^nd respondent to bring on record the alleged agreement of sale dated 09.02.2018 and the same had been rejected by the trial Court and the 3^rd respondent cannot be permitted to reagitate this issue. The further defense was that the 3^rd responden