THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2202 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Sourabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.72 of 2023 in O.S.No.102 of 2022, wherein a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, to implead the revision petitioners herein as defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the main suit has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein filed suit for partition and separate possession against respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of agricultural land in Sy.No.73/11 corresponding to new Sy.No.73/11/3 admeasuring Ac.4-00 guntas situated at Anukunta Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. The suit is filed for partition between plaintiffs and defendants/ family members i.e., legal heirs of Late Akthari Begum. Since suit is for partition and separate possession between the legal heirs of the Akthari Begum, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioners seeking impleadment on the premise that the revision petitioners/proposed parties, who are seeking rights under agreement of sale, ought to have filed suit for specific performance or for recovery of advance sale consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

4. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the revision petitioners have rights under agreement of sale dated 20.06.2019 which is executed by respondent No.1, who is defendant No.1 in the same suit and therefore, the trial Court arrived at erroneous conclusion by dismissing the I.A. under revision. It is the case of the revision petitioners that they have a vested right in the property and therefore, they ought to have been impleaded. Further, the revision petitioners pleaded that there is an erroneous conclusion that only legal heirs of the intestate property are necessary and proper parties.

5. During the arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that revision petitioners have entered into agreement of sale and have paid substantial part of the sale consideration to respondent No.1 as revenue records show ownership of the suit schedule property in the name of respondent No.1 only. Respondent No.1 is having pattedar passbook and title deed in his favour and therefore, the revision petitioners herein have believed the version of respondent No.1 that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and entered into the agreement of sale. With an intention to defeat the rights of the revision petitioners, the suit for partition was filed and therefore, to place the true facts before the Court, the revision petitioners are proper parties, as such prayed that the Civil Revision Petition be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 argued that in a suit for partition and separate possession third parties cannot be impleaded to increase the scope of the suit. Further, it is pleaded that the presence of the proposed parties is not required to determine lis between the original plaintiffs and defendants as such contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.

7. A perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.102 of 2022 shows that there is dispute between the siblings about partition of suit schedule property. The suit is filed on the premise that late Akthari Begum was owner of the suit schedule property and she passed away on 08.02.2016 intestate and after her death respondent Nos.1 and 2 cultivated the suit schedule property without any partition. Though, there was demand for partition by respondent Nos.4 to 7, respondent Nos.1 and 2 postponed the issue on one pretext or the other. Finally, on 27.03.2022 it is learnt that out of total Ac.4-00 guntas of lan