Advocates:
LAWYER S KNIT & COG. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10779-10780 OF 2013

(arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 13098-13099/2012)

N.ANANTHA REDDY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R.M. Lodha, J. :

Leave granted.

2.

The respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for

declaration and perpetual injunction against the

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (respondent No.

2 herein) and the Assistant City Planner (respondent

No. 3 herein). In the suit, the respondent No. 1

(plaintiff) prayed that notice dated 23.12.2009 issued

under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation Act, 1955 be declared as illegal, void and

not legally tenable. It was further prayed that the

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) have no

right to interfere with the construction being put up

by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for

perpetual injunction restraining the two defendants,

their officers/officials/servants from interfering with

the suit scheduled property and by directing them not

to demolish or cause any damage to the suit schedule

property.

3.

The appellant, who is plaintiff's neighbour,

made applications for his impleadment in the suit and

the application for interim relief. The applicant did

not claim any right, title or interest in the suit

schedule property but claimed that there is

infringement of his right of light and air if the

construction by the plaintiff is commenced and

completed and, therefore, he is a proper party in the

matter.

4.

The trial court heard the plaintiff and the

proposed party and by order dated 20.07.2010 allowed

the said applications. The trial court, while allowing

the said applications made by the present appellant,

observed as follows :-

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

“The claim of petitioner is that, though

he is not claiming right over the property

of plaintiff, his grievance is only about

the construction being made by the plaintiff

because it is effecting his right for light

and air. The objection of the plaintiff is

that because he is challenging the notice

issued by the Municipality in respect of the

construction, since the petitioner is not

having any right over the suit property, he

is not necessary party. I have considered

other submissions also made and the

citations relied by the either side. Under

Order 1 Rule 10 a party would become

necessary party or proper party if he is

having only over the subject matter to be

adjudication under the suit and then can be

impleaded. In this case though the third

party petitioner is not claiming any title

over the property. Even if the pleadings of

the plaintiff have to be considered, the

title of the plaintiff over the suit

property is not in dispute. What is in

dispute among the plaintiff and the

defendants already on record is about the

construction being made by the plaintiff.

Because the defendants already on record

have said to have issued notice to the

plaintiff stating that the construction is

illegal. Challenging the said notice the

present suit is filed. The present suit is

filed after withdrawing the previous suit

for injunction filed against Municipality

said to be filed before issuance of the

notice under Section 452 of Municipal Act.

In that case the petitioner had already been

impleaded on his application as he was

expressing the grievance of the infringement

of his right for light and air in view of

the construction of the plaintiff. Having

considered the decisions relied by either

party to my considered opinion, the decision

relied by the third party petitioner is that