HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3319 of 2023 Date: 06.05.2026 Between:

Shaik Abdul Aziz …. Petitioner AND Vangala Laxman and Others …. Respondents

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the learned V Addl. District Judge at Karimnagar in I.A No 346 of 2018 in O.S No 129 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order I rule 10 of the C.P.C to implead the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 as defendants in the said Original Suit.

2. Heard Sri. D. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Though notice has been duly served upon Respondent Nos. 2, 4 to 7, 11 and 14, as evident from the Memo of Proof of Service filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner vide USR No. 126720 of 2023, the said respondents have failed to enter appearance before this Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Respondent Nos. 12 and 13 are reported to be deceased.

3. Further, notices issued to Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 were returned unserved with an endorsement “No such person” vide Memo USR No. 106753 of 2024, and notice issued to address of Respondent No. 8 shown in the cause title was returned unserved with an endorsement “unclaimed” vide Memo USR No. 126721 of 2023. As per the settled legal position and having regard to the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, service of notice returned with an endorsement “unclaimed” and “No such Person” amounts to deemed service. It is also noted that, vide Memo USR No. 123911 of 2024, notice has been served upon the learned counsel appearing for the respondents before the Trial Court. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed with the matter as the respondents have not chosen to contest the case, despite service or deemed service of notice.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

5. The factual backdrop to the present revision is that the Petitioner instituted a suit vide O.S. No. 129 of 2015 for declaration of title and perpetual Injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property against the respondents. The Petitioner claims to have derived title through his vendors, whereas the contesting defendants assert a rival title tracing their rights through members of Telangana Watandars Society, who allegedly sold the property to them under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.2013. The dispute, therefore, centres around competing chains of title, with the Petitioner questioning the validity of the respondents’ claim and asserting his own lawful ownership. In that context, the Petitioner sought to implead the proposed respondents (Defendants 4 to 14), who are stated to be members of the said Society and part of the transaction through which the respondents claim title, contending that their presence is necessary for complete adjudication of the issues. Thus, the suit is not merely for injunction simpliciter, but involves adjudication of title, validity of transactions, and determination of the rightful ownership and possession over the suit schedule property, along with consequential reliefs.

6. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter contending that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction can be converted into suit for recovery of possession, if the plaintiff has lost the possession after filing the suit but in the present case neither the petitioner, nor his vendor are having right, title and possession since 1974 and they cannot convey title and possession to the petitioner. It is further contended by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they are in possession of the property from the date of purchas