APHC010261082012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3573]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5029/2012 Between:

1. V IVEKANANDA VIDYA SAMSTHA SOCIETY, VINUKONDA,, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT, SAYYAD RAFIQ AHAMMAD, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, R/O. VINUKONDA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. S HAIK KHAJA, W/O. NANNE SAHEB, R/O.PEDANASAR BAZAAR VINUKONDA TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. S HAIK MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O. YUNIS R/O. D.NO. 11041, OPP: TO RANUHUSSAINPANJA VINUKONDA, GUNTUR DISTRICT (RR NO. 2 NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS CRP ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

______________________________

JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI + CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5029/2012 % 13.03.2026 # Between:

1. VIVEKANANDA VIDYA SAMSTHA SOCIETY ...PETITIONER AND

1. SHAIK KHAJA, W/O. NANNE SAHEB And Others ...RESPONDENT(S):

! Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala ^ Counsel for Respondent(S):

Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred: (2008) 13 SCC 658 (1996) 10 SCC 53

2026 SCC Online SC 4 The Court made the following ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 14.08.2012 passed in I.A.No.1019 of 2010 in O.S.No.120 of 2010 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet in allowing the petition seeking to implead the 1^st respondent herein as 2^nd defendant in the suit.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notices were served on the respondents, none entered appearance.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the suit in O.S.No.120 of 2010 was filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 28.03.2003 executed by the 2^nd respondent herein in favour of the petitioner herein. During the pendency of the said suit, the 1^st respondent herein filed the above said application before the trial Court claiming right in the suit schedule property and alleging that the said suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in collusion with the 2^nd respondent for unlawful gain and without any manner of right over the property. It was alleged that the suit schedule property was originally belongs to Syed Khatunbi wife of Nabisa. That the said Khatunbi was her mother-in-law. Shaik Ayub is her nephew and the 1^st defendant in the suit is the son of Shaik Yunus who is the brother of late Shaik Ayub. The schedule mentioned property was declared to be the property of late Shaik Ayub from his ancestors and the said Ayub died unmarried and intestate leaving behind his entire family members as his legal heirs. It was further contended that he was looked after by the 1^st respondent herein, he orally promised to give a share in the said property as per Shariyat law as such she is the distant kindred of class IV and claims to have 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule property as per the inheritance of Muslim law.

4. The said application filed by the 1^st respondent was resisted by the plaintiff denying the allegations of collusion and the right claimed by the 1^st respondent herein and further contended that the suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale and she is not a proper and necessary party to the said suit as the same is based on a contract between the plaintiff and the 2^nd respondent herein. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 14.08.2012, allowed the petition and the operative portion of the order reads as under:

“As per the averments of the petition affidavit, it is the contention of