APHC010275152024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1382 & 1383/2024 Between:

Pulipati Venkata Rathnam ...PETITIONER AND Bellamkonda Krishnaiah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DIVYATHEJA GADIKOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

These revisions are directed against the orders, dated

12.03.2024, dismissing I.A.No.91 of 2024 in O.S.No.128 of 2022 and I.A.No.97 of 2024 in O.S.No.111 of 2022 respectively on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Nellore, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioner therein as defendant No.4 in the suit and to allow the consequential amendment.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice on respondents 1 to 4, there is no appearance.

3. As the defendants in both the suits and the proposed party sought to be impleaded as defendant No.4 are one and the same, both these revisions are heard together and a common order is passed.

4. The facts that lead to filing of these applications seeking to implead the proposed party as stated in the affidavits filed in support of the applications, in brief, are as follows:

a. The 1^st and the 3^rd defendants in these suits, viz., O.S.Nos.128 of 2022 and 111 of 2022, namely, Bellamkonda Jayamma and Bellamkonda Chinnaiah, filed a suit in O.S.No.104 of 2023 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Nellore, for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 08.09.2017, coupled with the memorandum of understanding, dated 06.12.2019, and to execute the registered sale deed in their favour or their nominees. In the said suit (O.S.No.104 of 2023), the plaintiffs, who are the 1^st and the 3^rd defendants herein, admitted that marketing agreement, dated 06.12.2019, relating to 16 plots was executed in favour of the proposed defendant. Another marketing agreement, dated 06.12.2019, relating to 108 plots was also executed by the 1^st and the 3^rd defendants herein in favour of the proposed defendant. The 3^rd defendant is the agent of the 1^st and the 3^rd defendants under general power of attorney. Subsequent to the execution of memorandum of understanding, dated 06.12.2019, and marketing agreements, the 2^nd defendant executed settlement deeds in favour of her son and daughter ignoring the memorandum of understanding and marketing agreements, dated 06.12.2019. The 1^st and the 3^rd defendants, in collusion with the plaintiff herein, filed the present suits to grab the suit schedule property with fabricated agreement of sale. In the event the suits are decreed, it would affect the rights of the proposed party over the suit schedule property under the marketing agreements, dated 06.12.2019. Hence, in order to protect the rights of the proposed party over the suit schedule property, it is just and necessary to add the proposed party as 4^th defendant in the present suits.

b. The 1^st plaintiff filed counter stating that the suit was filed seeking a direction to execute registered sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale, dated 31.03.2016 in favour of the plaintiff. The said agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendants and the proposed party is not a party to the suit document and hence, the proposed party is not a necessary party. The suit in O.S.No.104 of 2023 has nothing to do with the plaintiff. The memorandum of understanding cannot be enforced. No absolute rights over the suit schedule property are conveyed in favour of the proposed party. To decide and determine the issues in the suits, the proposed party is not a necessary party. If the proposed party has any grievance, his remedy lies elsewhere, but not in these suits.

c. The 2^nd and the 4^th defendants filed separate counters denying the allegations in the petition and conte