Third parties can be impleaded in injunction suits where their involvement is necessary for complete adjudication, helping avoid future legal conflicts.

ORDER :

B.S. Bhanumathi, J.

This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 29.12.2023, dismissing I.A.No.891 of 2018 in O.S.No.341 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, filed by third parties / petitioners Nos.1 to 6 under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as defendants Nos.5 to 10 in the suit.

2. The respondents Nos.1 & 2 filed the suit against the respondents Nos.3 to 6 for perpetual injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property of Ac.3.04 cents in Sy.No.70-3 of Kadiri village and mandal of Anantapur district was originally owned by Vutla Venkata Subbaiah and he sold the same to Smt. G.Sowbhagyavathi, M. Nagarathnamma, T.Aravinda Babu and N. Sreenivasulu Reddy for consideration under a registered sale deed, dated 07.04.2011, and put them in possession of the property; that the purchasers enjoyed the property with absolute rights and subsequently, Smt. Sowbhagyavathi and the three others sold the entire plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 for consideration under a registered sale deed, dated 04.07.2011 and put them in possession. Shortly thereafter, on 18.07.2011, Smt. G.Sowbhagyavathi and the three others executed a registered rectification deed, rectifying the mistake in the name of the plaintiff No.2, i.e., instead of mentioning her name as D.C. Nagamani, it was mentioned as D.V.Nagamani in the registered sale deed, dated 04.07.2011; that mutations were made in the revenue records in the names of the plaintiffs and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to the plaintiffs showing half of the plaint schedule property with demarcated sub-division survey numbers 70-3A and 70-3B; that the plaintiffs got the plaint schedule property converted for non-agricultural use vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri in R.Dis.No.2519/2014E, dated 22.08.2014; and that the defendants, having no manner of right and possession, started interfering with the plaint schedule property and made efforts to exert pressure on the plaintiffs to alienate the same to them, but as the plaintiffs declined to do so, the defendants who are realtors, are making all efforts to grab the plaint schedule property in one way or the other including fabrication of revenue records.

3. The defendants filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and further stating that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to D.Mangamma; that she executed an agreement of sale in favour of Vutla Venkata Subbaiah and Y. Krishna Reddy who filed a suit in O.S.No.370 of 1988 before the Court of the District Munsif, Kadiri, for its specific performance; that the suit was decreed; that decree holders transferred the decree in favour of M.Askar; that the transferee obtained a registered sale deed through Court in execution proceedings in E.P.No.44 of 1992 in O.S.No.370 of 1988; that M. Askar sold the property to the defendants under a registered sale deed, dated 19.07.2007, for a valid consideration and put the purchasers in possession of the property; that D.Mangamma filed an application in E.A.No.66 of 1989 for grant of cheque and received the amount deposited for balance of consideration by accepting the decree; that D.Mangamma could not execute a Will in favour of Vutla Venkata Subbaiah; that when there were rumors in the town that Venkata Subbaiah is going to alienate the property in favour of third parties, the defendants raised an objection setting out the facts to the Sub- Registrar, Kadiri and requesting him not to entertain any deed of alienation in respect of the plaint schedule property and further,