A lease holder without a direct interest in a partition suit is not a necessary party for effective adjudication.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.1403 of 2019 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 is the first wife of Jangaiah and the plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of plaintiff No.1. They filed O.S.No.2 of 2019 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and to allot one share to them. The petitioners - plaintiffs filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice vide I.A.No1403 of 2019 to implead Laxmi Narsimha Educational Society as defendant No.4 being the lease holder of the entire suit schedule property given by respondents 1 and 2 under two separate lease deeds. It was the contention of the petitioners / plaintiffs that defendant No.4 was running an educational institution by name Laxmi Narsimha Educational Society in the suit schedule property and that he was a proper and necessary party.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter disputing the relationship of petitioner No.2 with their father Jangaiah. They were claiming rights over the suit schedule property under a Will Deed dated 01.12.2007 executed by Jangaiah, their father, in their favor. They contended that the proposed defendant No.4 was not a necessary party to decide the issues involved in the suit and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Notice was issued to the proposed party / defendant No.4. The proposed party also engaged an advocate, but did not file any counter and not opposed the petition in I.A.No.1403 of 2019.

5. On considering the contentions of both the learned counsel, the trial court i.e. the learned IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy dismissed the petition observing that the presence of lease holder was not necessary for adjudication of a partition suit. He was neither a proper nor a necessary party in a suit for partition. The trial court further observed that the petitioners failed to seek any consequential amendment upon the impleadment of proposed respondent No.4 as defendant No.4 in the main suit and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice was not complied with and dismissed the petition on the said two grounds.

6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of I.A.No.1403 of 2019, the petitioners – plaintiffs preferred this CRP.

7. Heard Ms.G.Sri Vidya, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court came to an incorrect conclusion that the proposed party / defendant No.4 being a lease holder was not a necessary party. The defendant No.4 already changed the nature of the property by constructing several buildings therein and was running an educational institution and was also trying to make further constructions. Though the proposed party was not a share holder of the property, he was in actual possession of the property at the instance of respondents 1 and 2. In the event of decreeing the suit, in the final decree proceedings, a question might arise as to who was responsible to deliver possession of the share of the petitioners. To avoid all future complications, it was necessary to implead the proposed party as defendant No.4 for effective adjudication of the suit. The petitioners also filed a petition vide I.A.No.179 of 2023 to direct the proposed party / defendant No.4 to deposit half of the rents before the trial court. Without making him as a party to the suit proceedings, it was not possible to seek the relief of deposit of rents from the proposed party. The trial court also dismissed I.A.No.179 of 2023 and they were taking separate steps for challenging the said order.

8.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the t