A party claiming ownership via a Will must be joined in eviction proceedings to protect their rights and avoid potential prejudice.

COMMON ORDER:

(K. Sujana, J.)

C.R.P.No.1707 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.1156 of 2023 in O.S.No.108 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

2. C.R.P.No.1716 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.1155 of 2023 in O.S.No.109 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and C.R.P.No.1730 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.1154 of 2023 in O.S.No.107 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

3. The petitioner in all these revisions is one and the same and she filed the said interlocutory applications under Order I rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’) in all the three suits. For the sake of convenience the petitioner herein is referred to as Proposed defendant and the respondent as plaintiff in these revision petitions.

4. The petitioner herein who is the proposed defendant filed I.A.Nos.1156 of 2023, 1155 of 2023 and 1154 of 2023 seeking to implead her in the suits. She claims that her father, Late V. Papaiah, who is also the grandfather of plaintiff purchased the land in question and constructed a building on it. He executed a registered Will Deed on 20.08.2004, bequeathing the property to her. However, during his last days, Late V. Papaiah was bedridden, and the plaintiff allegedly took advantage of this situation, got a Registered Gift Settlement Deed executed in his favor vide document No.3818 of 2015, which the proposed defendant claims it as fraudulent. The proposed defendant has filed a separate suit to declare the said gift settlement deed as null and void. She claims that she is the rightful owner of the property and that the plaintiff is attempting to claim ownership under false pretenses. The proposed defendant also states that she rented the property to the defendants in the respective suits and that the rents are her only source of income.

5. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the petitions, stating that the registered gift deed executed in his favor makes him the absolute owner of the property. He claims that the Will Deed was revoked by the subsequent gift deed, and therefore, it is valid and binding on all the parties. Hence, the proposed defendant has no locus standi and prayed to dismiss the said implead petitions.

6. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petitions stating that plaintiff has filed copy of the rental deed which was entered by him with the defendants in the respective suits and the proposed defendant did not file any document to show that she is the landlord and not the plaintiff and the persons against whom the suits are filed did not contest the suit, or filed written statement within time, as such, their right to file written statement was forfeited, which shows that the defendants therein did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant. As such, petitioner herein is not proper or necessary party and dismissed the said implead petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petitions are filed.

7. Heard Sri Shaik Chand Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the revision petitions and Sri S.N.Veerender Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff in all the revision petitions.

8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/proposed defendant is that the proposed defendant has filed a suit for cancellation of gift deed which is pending and the plaintiff with fabricated documents claiming right over the suit property and got injunction order in his favour by not impleading the proposed defendant in the eviction suit. Further, the plaintiff h