THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.781 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent No.1-plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2019 in I.A. No.114 of 2018 in O.S No.29 of 2018 passed by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S No.29 of 2018. O.S. No.29 of 2018 was filed seeking the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing H.No.20-2-742/7, admeasuring 120 sq. yds., consisting of ground + two floors situated at Dood Bowli, Hyderabad, against respondent Nos.2 to 4, who were none other than the brother and sisters of the plaintiff. The specific case of the revision petitioner-plaintiff was that his deceased father late B.Surya Prakash purchased the suit schedule property from one Narasamma about 35 years ago and he passed away intestate on 14.06.2016. The revision petitioner was residing in a portion of the suit schedule property on the first floor, and part of the ground floor and second floor were vacant and under the lock and key of the revision petitioner.

The other part of the ground floor was in possession of one Mr. Bheem, who was a tenant and he was paying rents to respondent No.2 herein. The defendants in the suit started creating disturbance in the family of the plaintiff as such, he was constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

3. While the matter was posted for framing of issues, the respondent No.1 filed an application vide I.A. No.114 of 2018 seeking to implead himself as defendant No.4 in the main suit. The respondent No.1 contended that he was the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of two unregistered sale deeds dated 08.03.1990 and 09.03.1990 executed by one Smt. Ganji Rajamani and Smt. Udatta Narsamma, respectively, and the same were allegedly got validated vide File No.1813/AR/2002 and 1816/AR/2002 both dated 28.01.2002. The respondent No.1 further contended that the plaintiff in the suit was his tenant in respect of part of the suit schedule property on the first floor under an oral tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- per month. The plaintiff was not paying any rents for the past five months, as such, he was constrained to issue quit notice on 14.03.2018 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act seeking eviction and recovery of possession and rents due. While so, he came to know that the parties to the suit colluded with each other and filed the present suit as such, it became necessary for him to be impleaded as party in view of his rights being affected in respect of the property.

4. The revision petitioner herein-plaintiff filed counter in the said application contending that the respondent No.1-petitioner had no locus standi to implead in the suit and denied that he was the owner of the suit property by virtue of two separate sale deeds and contended that the said documents were created and forged, one document was in Urdu and its translation was not even filed and denied that he was a tenant of the suit schedule property. He further contended that there was no jural relationship between him and the third party petitioner as such, the question of payment of rents would not arise. He denied that he filed a false suit for perpetual injunction in collusion with his elder brother and elder sisters and involved the petitioner’s property in a frivolous litigation. He contended that on the same day of issuing legal notice on 14.03.2018 itself, the third party petitioner filed the above petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The trial court, on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel appearing before it as well as considering the citations relied by them, allowed the petition permitting the third party petition