Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3595 OF 2017 Between:
1. Kada Raghava W/o Ramuluo Aged 67 years, R/o D.No. 2-138, Cheediga, Kakinada Rural Mandal; East Godavari Dist.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. Rotta Tulasi W/o Venkata Ramana, Aged 28 years, Housewife, R/o D.No. 16-10-11, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.
2. Karanam Manga Tayaru W/o Malleswara Rao Aged 49 years, house wife, R/o D.No.12-7-52, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: E V V S RAVI KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3595 of 2017
ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 13.06.2017 passed in I.A.No.141 of 2016 in O.S.No.95 of 2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.
2. The Respondent No.2 along with her sister had filed a suit O.S.No.236 of 2009 against the petitioner for declaration and consequential permanent injunction before the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram. The petitioner also filed a counter claim for the relief of permanent injunction in the said suit and the trial in that particular suit had commenced.
3. While so, the Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.95 of 2013 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.07.2009 alleging that the Respondent No.2 had executed an agreement of sale in her favour in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. As the petitioner claims right in the property, which is a subject matter of suit for specific performance i.e. O.S.No.95 of 2013, he sought to come on record and contest the same. The said application was dismissed.
Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In a suit for specific performance, the parties to the agreement of sale and the persons who claimed title to the property subsequent to the agreement of sale shall be the parties to the suit. The petitioner in this case is disputing the ownership of the Respondent No.2 and he is claiming independent right to the property.
5. The dispute between the Respondent No.2 and the petitioner being a distinct claim, the same is not dependent on the outcome of the suit filed for specific performance filed by the Respondent No.1. On the contrary, the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.95 of 2013 is dependent on the outcome of O.S.No.236 of 2009 before the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. Apart from the above reasons, the effect of impleading the petitioner is that the suit for specific performance would be converted into one of determination of title and the same is impermissible. Therefore, the order of the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.
6. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.10.2024 IS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3595 of 2017 Date: 25.10.2024 IS
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
