Subsequent purchasers cannot be impleaded in partition suits until a final decree is passed, as they do not hold necessary party status under the Code of Civil Procedure.

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 04.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.296 of 2021 in O.S.No.26 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.26 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) suit for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner/proposed defendant No.4 filed I.A.No.296 of 2021 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to implead the petitioner/defendant No.4 in the said suit. It is stated that the petitioner claims absolute ownership and possession of agricultural land, totaling Ac.5.05 guntas in New Kanjar, Laxmanchanda Mandal, Nirmal District, purchased from Tadisena Sumeeth Reddy via registered sale deed No.2643/2019. The history of the land shows it was initially allotted to Easari Pedda Bhumanna under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, then sold to Potha Reddy Narsareddy, who sold it to Koripelli Swapna, and eventually to the petitioner. The vendors of the petitioner had mutated their names in revenue records, reflecting continuous ownership since 2001. The petitioner has been in peaceful possession, carrying out agricultural activities, and has received pattedar passbooks and title deeds. However, unknown persons claiming Court orders attempted to trespass, prompting the petitioner to investigate and discover a pending partition suit filed by plaintiffs against defendant Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner seeks to be impleaded as defendant No.4 in O.S.No.26 of 2013 to prevent irreparable loss and hardship, citing suspicions of a collusive suit due to the defendants' lack of contest and the singularity of the property in question.

3. On the other hand, the respondents/plaintiffs contest the claims of the petitioner before the trial Court stating that her alleged purchase of the suit land (Ac.5.05 guntas in New Kanjar, Laxmanchanda Mandal, Nirmal District) after the decree, dated 07.09.2018, renders her petitions to set aside the ex-parte judgment and implead herself as defendant No.4 un-maintainable. They assert the original vendors were not absolute owners, and the petitioner's purchases aim to defeat their legitimate claims. The suit land was assigned to the joint family due to displacement from SRSP, and the original owner, Easari Pedda Bhumanna, had four sons. The respondents dispute the ownership and possession of the vendors of the petitioner, citing the failure of the defendants to produce evidence of purchase. They contend that revenue record mutations and entries do not establish title rights and that the plaintiffs never sold their share or trespassed onto the land. The trial Court rightly passed the preliminary decree, and the claims of the petitioner claims are barred by limitation.

4. The trial court after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition on 04.04.2023 observing that on 07.09.2018 decree and preliminary decree for partition in O.S.No.26 of 2013, and impleading defendant No.3 on 21.06.2017. Since the suit was already decided, the Court below ruled that the request of the petitioner to impleaded the petitioner as defendant No.4 was not maintainable. Instead, the petitioner should have filed the petition in the final decree proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

5. Heard Sri J.C. Francis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Court below is unreasonable, arbitrary and unsustainable and needs to be set aside. The Court below committed material irregularity wherein it has rejected the implead petition of the petitioner solely on the ground that the suit schedule property was purchased by the petitioner subsequent to t