IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITIONNo.497 of 2026 Date: 20.02.2026 Between:

Smt. Anna Goud Latha.

…..Petitioner AND Joolukuntla Karunakar Reddyand fifteen others.

….Respondents

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitionerchallenging the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.32 of 2026 in O.S.No.18 of 2014 by the learned Principal District Judge, at Nizamabad.

2. The petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.32 of 2026 in O.S.No.18 of 2014 under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to implead her as defendant No.16 in the main suit. The trial Court in its order dated 29.01.2026 dismissed the said I.A. Para

14 of the impugned order reads as follows:

“14.On perusal of documents placed before this court it is to be seen that the petitioner filed this present petition to implead the petitioner to the suit proceedings as defendant No.16 at the stage of arguments alleging that he was not made as a party to the suit proceedings though he is a bonafide purchase and registered owner and possessor of plot No.137 lies in Sy.No.49 of Kanteshwar shivar i.e., part of suit schedule property. The suit is filed in the year 2014 for specific performance of contract and the evidence of both parties completed and marked documents on behalf of both parties. On perusal of Ex.A3/death Certificate shows that Sri Bandari Rajendher was died on 09-10-1995. Ex.A2/General Power of Attorney dated 15-10-1992 shows that Yendala Narsimloo executed general power of attorney in favour of Y. Narayana S/o: Nagaiah and Bandari Rajender S/o: Rajanna. Since one of the joint General Power of Attorney holder was died on 09-10-1995, the entire General Power of attorney revoke/becomes Invalid. The surviving attorney has no authority to act alone. Any act done after the death of one of the attorney would be void and unenforceable. As per certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.3689 of 2000, it is executed by the one of the GPA holder Y.Narayana in favour of vendor of petitioner namely Kothapally Srinivas on 26-06-2000 which is after the death of Bandari Rajender with regard to plot No.137 lies in Sy.No.49 of Kanteshwar Shivar. The joint General Power of Attorney requires both attorneys to act with. Under Indian Contract Act, the Agency ends on death of one of the attorney. The Courts do not allow the survival of joint authority unless expressly stated as joint and several. On perusal of registered GPA, is only a joint GPA. Therefore, as the another GPA holder Bandari Rajender was no more as on the date of execution of registered sale deed dated 26-06-2000 in favour of vendor of petitioner namely Kothapally Srinivas. GPA holder Y. Narayana alone had absolutely no legal authority to execute the registered sale deed No.3689/2000 dated 26-06-2000 in favour of vendor of petitioner is void ab-initio and its subsequent transactions flowing from void sale deed, the alleged purchase made by the petitioner through registered document No.9850/2010 dated 23-12-2010, is without any legal valid title. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of case, and in view of any angle the petition is liable to be dismissed.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the subject property and her presence is essential for comprehensive adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. It is further submitted that the trial Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, ought not have conducted a mini-trial or rendered a conclusive finding on the validity of the registered sale deeds and the underlying General Power of Attorney(GPA). The learned counsel further argued that the death of one of the joint attorneys does not ipso facto terminate the agency if the intention of the principal suggests otherwise, and as such, the dismissal of the implead app