IMPORTANT POINT
Impleadment of Pendente Lite Purchaser – Merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, concept of transferee pendente lite not being bound by judgment does not arise and he would be bound by result of litigation, though he remains unrepresented.

ORDER

Heard Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramchander Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.1098 of 2024 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar.

3. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents 2 to 4 herein/defendants 1 to 3/D.1 to D.3 to declare him as title holder, owners and possessor of the suit schedule agricultural land (for short, ‘the subject property’) and for perpetual injunction restraining D.1 to D.3 from interfering with the suit schedule property; to declare the sale certificate, dated 06.09.2005 as not a title deed of D.1; to declare the registered sale deed bearing document No. 1096 of 2010 dated 23.04.2010 executed by D.1 in favour of D.2 as null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff; to declare the registered sale deed Doc.No.5387 of 2010 dated 03.08.2019 executed by D.2 in favour of D.3 as null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff; and to direct the revenue authorities to rectify the mutation in respect of the schedule agricultural land as shown in the schedule of property be declared as null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit contending that he is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas comprised in Sy.No.2/1 situated at Katnapalli Village, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District (for short, ‘the suit schedule property’). The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Bandari Mallaiah under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1551 of 1987 dated 22.08.1987 and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and cultivating the said land. One Gannu Sanjeeva Reddy, filed a suit vide O.S.No.116 of 2001 before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, for recovery of Rs.80,000/- with interest against the plaintiff herein. The said suit was decreed on 10.01.2003 and he has filed E.P.No.106 of 2003 for execution of the said judgment and decree. The said E.P. was allowed, public auction was conducted on 22.08.2005 and D.1 stood as successful bidder and deposited the amount. The sale was duly confirmed. After getting the sale certificate dated 06-09-2005, D.1 failed to obtain possession of the suit schedule property. As such the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property without any interference to the knowledge of D.1.

5. In pahani patrika for fasli 2019, the plaintiff found the name of D.2 as pattadar and possessor. D.1 in collusion with D.2 to deprive the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, created the mutation proceedings with File No.B/633/2019, dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Tahsildar, in favour of D.2. On 04.12.2019, the plaintiff demanded D.2 to get the said mutation cancelled, but D.2 denied the same. Even D.1 executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.1096 of 2010, dated 23.04.2010 in favour of D.2 basing on which D.2 created mutation proceeding without any valid title. The Plaintiff is not party to the said registered sale deed and mutation proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff sought to declare the said documents and mutation proceedings as null and void, inoperative and not binding on him. On 03.12.2009, plaintiff requested D.2 to cancel the mutation proceedings and fabricated registered sale deed bearing document No.5387 of 2019 dated 03.08.2019 executed by D.2 in favour of D.3 but he denied.

6. D.Nos.1 to 3/respondents 2 to 4 herein filed written statement in the said suit denying the averments made by the plaintiff.

7. During pendency of the said suit, 1st respondent herein filed an application vide I.A.No.1098 of 2024 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil P