A party seeking impleadment must demonstrate a fair semblance of title or interest over the property in question, and failure to seek final decree proceedings in a partition suit may impact the claim for entitlement to the property.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.3 is not necessary party to the present revision.

2. This revision is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.06.2023 in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.8 of 2018 passed by I Additional District Judge, Khammam, dismissing the petition filed under Order - I, Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - Plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S. No.8 of 2018 against respondent No.3 - defendant for specific performance of contract based on the agreement of sale dated 19.05.2016 in respect of suit schedule property bearing Municipal House No.4-8-4 Part, 4-8-4/1/2 Part and 4-8-4/1/2A part along with its place measuring 2705 square yards with constructed area of RCC roof measuring 7504.83 square feet and GI sheet roof measuring to an extent of 194.92 square feet vide plot Nos.4 Part, 5 and 6 in and out of Survey No.218 of Prakashnagar, Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam City and District.

4. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner herein had filed a petition vide I.A. No.1 of 2023 under Order - I, Rule - 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to implead him in the said suit as defendant No.2 on the following grounds:-

i) Respondent No.3 herein is his father;

ii) He has filed a suit for partition vide O.S. No.88 of 2017 against respondent No.3 herein - sole defendant and his brother, namely Gandhi Aravind claiming 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property in O.S. No.88 of 2017 on the file of Judge, Family Court - cum - IV Additional District Judge, Khammam;

iii) The said suit O.S. No.88 of 2017 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2017. A preliminary decree was passed for partition of the suit schedule properties therein into three (03) equal shares and allotting one such share to the petitioner herein;

iv) 1/3rd share of the petitioner herein is the part and parcel of the suit schedule property in O.S. No.8 of 2018;

v) The plaintiffs herein have filed the suit in O.S. No.8 of 2018 in collusion with respondent No.3 herein in order to defraud his legitimate share;

vi) Agreement of sale dated 19.05.2016 is created for the purpose of filing O.S.No.8 of 2018; and

vii) In view of the above, the petitioner herein is just and necessary party to the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2018.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their counter refuting the relief by contending as under:

i) They filed the subject suit basing on the agreement of sale 19.05.2016;

ii) Respondent No.3 acquired the suit schedule property out of confirmation of oral partition deed from his family members vide register document bearing No.8014 of 2014, dated 05.11.2014;

iii) Out of family necessities, respondent No.3 herein - sole defendant approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 and offered to alienate the suit schedule property for a lump sum sale consideration of Rs.80.00 lakhs and accepting the said offer, the plaintiffs have paid the entire sale consideration amount to the sole defendant on the date of entering into the said agreement of sale at the ratio of 30:70 in the presence of attestors, namely Mr. M. Samba Shiva Rao and Mr.K. Naveen Kumar;

iv) The sole defendant delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and agreed to execute a registered sale deed in their name;

v) Since the sole defendant failed to execute the register sale deed, they filed the subject suit after issuing a legal notice;

vi) Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked and when the suit was coming up for further evidence on behalf of plaintiffs, the petitioner herein, son of sole defendant filed the present petition to implead him as defendant No.2;

vii) Since the sole defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, the petitioner herein is nothing to do with the said propert