An agreement of sale for immovable property does not create a proprietary interest in the property; therefore, a pendente lite agreement holder is not a necessary or proper party for impleadment in a partition suit.

Heard Sri Mohammed Sanaullah Farhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and M/s.Indus Law Firm, learned counsel for respondent Nos.12 to 14.

Perused the entire record.

2. The present revision is preferred by the revision petitioner/proposed plaintiff No.3 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.469 of 2022 in O.S.No.1517 of 2018 dated 15.04.2024, wherein a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the revision petitioner as party to the suit i.e., plaintiff No.3 has been dismissed.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the interlocutory application and the revision are that respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property consisting of land admeasuring Ac.0-27 guntas in Sy.No.109 situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The suit schedule property was owned by the father of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, whereas respondent Nos.3 to 5, without any right, have created fabricated sale deeds. During pendency of said suit, the implead petitioner herein entered into an agreement of sale with respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 29.01.2021, agreeing to purchase the undivided share of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule property. Since there is an agreement of sale between respondent Nos.1 and 2 with the revision petitioner, he is a necessary and proper party. Therefore, an interlocutory application is filed to implead the revision petitioner.

4. Respondent Nos.10 to 12 filed counter opposing the implead petition claiming that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have created a fabricated agreement of sale. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not have any exclusive right to execute any agreement of sale as they do not have any right and the revision petitioner also did not accrue any rights in the suit schedule property. The revision petitioner can avail his remedies against respondent Nos.1 and 2 in separate proceedings, but he is not a proper and necessary party in a suit for partition. Hence, respondent Nos.10 to 12 opposed the petition.

5. The learned trial Court upon examining the case of both the parties held that the premise on which the revision petitioner intends to be arrayed as a party to the suit is that he entered into an agreement of sale with respondent Nos.1 and 2 for purchasing their undivided share in the suit schedule property. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are seeking partition of the scheduled property from the year 2018 onwards, whereas, the agreement of sale is entered into in the year 2021. Since the suit for partition is still pending, the rights of the parties to the suit have not yet been crystallized. Further, there is the allegation about selling the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.6 and 9/respondent Nos.8 and 11 herein in the year 1977 under registered sale deeds and subsequent sale to the purchasers. Be that as it may, the rights of the revision petitioner depend upon the rights of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the circumstances, impleading the revision petitioner would expand the scope of the suit. Lastly, it is held that the revision petitioner is not a proper and necessary party. Hence, the petition has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the trial Court failed