Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
T.Chandrasekhar And Another(In All ... vs Sunchu Rajamallu And 9 Others ... on 3 June, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2014 HYD 2
Author: R.Kantha Rao
Bench: R.Kantha Rao
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.3901 of 2013 and batch 03-06-2014 T.Chandrasekhar and another(in all Revision Petitions) ....Petitioners Sunchu Rajamallu and 9 others (CRP.3901/2013) Sunchu enkata Subhadra and 9 others (CRP.3909/2013) Sunchu Rajani and 9 others (CRP.3913/2013) ..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.S.R.ANJANEYULU Counsel for the respondent No.1: Sri NAMAVARAPU RAJESWARARAO, <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases Referred: 1. 2010(5) SCJ 831 2. AIR 2012 SC 2925 3. AIR 2002 AP 8 4. 2005(4) ALD 98 (SC) 5. LAWS(SC)-2005-4-21 6. LAWS(SC)-2004-1-68 7. LAWS(APH)-2013-3-29 The Court made the following: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3901, 3909 & 3913 of 2013 COMMON ORDER:
These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 11.03.2013 passed in I.A.Nos.23, 24 & 25 of 2011 in I.A.No.3728/2002 in O.S.No.810/2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
I have heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Namavarapu Rajeswarao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
These three revision petitions are between the same parties and common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration in these three revision petitions and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs. Respondents Nos.2 to 10 are the defendants. The 1st respondent is the proposed party. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.810/2002 against the respondents Nos.2 to 10 for partition of the suit schedule properties, situated at Ursu village in Warangal District. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 29.08.2002. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application for passing of final decree in I.A.No.3728/2002. While the final decree proceedings were pending, the 1st respondent/proposed party in the three revision petitions filed I.A.Nos.23, 24 & 25 of 2011 under Order I Rule-10 CPC to implead them as parties to the final decree proceedings. It is contended by proposed parties that the plaintiffs offered to sell part of the scheduled mentioned property to them, entered into agreements of sale on 18.03.2005 and 24.03.2005, received agreed sale consideration, delivered vacant possession to them, and handed over pattedar passbooks and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities and undertook to execute a regular sale deed as and when demanded. According to the proposed parties, the plaintiffs subsequently with a view to defeat their rights, filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.810/2002 for partition against the defendants Tippani Yadagiri and others in respect of the same properties and other properties, against which the plaintiffs entered into agreements of sale with the proposed parties, and obtained an ex parte decree collusively. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed applications for passing of final decree to allot the shares by metes and bounds. The grievance of the proposed parties is that without their presence, if the final decree proceedings are continued and concluded, their rights under the agreements of sale would be jeopardized, therefore, they are not only proper parties to the final decree proceedings but also necessary parties and without their presence, there cannot be any complete and effective adjudication in the final decree proceedings.
The impleadment petitions were opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the alleged agreements of sale are fabricated documents, they never executed any such agreements in favour of the proposed parties, the proposed parties filed suits seeking specific performance of the alleged agreements of sale, they have to work out their remedies in the said suits, but they cannot claim to be added in the final decree proceedings.
Repealing the contentions urged by the plaintiffs, the learned Court below allowed the impleadment petitions filed under Order I Rule-10 CPC by the proposed parties.
The learned Court below for allowing the applications filed by the proposed parties, took into consideration the fact that the decree passed is an ex parte decree, the parties can be added at any stage of the proceedings, since the 1st respondent/proposed party in all three revision petitions have interest in the subject matter of the final decree proceedings, they are necessary parties for the final decree proceedings.
The question to be determined in these revision petitions is whether the order passed by the learned Court below in allowing the impleadment petitions is in accordance with law and can be sustained?
Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that the 1st respondent/proposed parties have already filed suits seeking specific performance of the respective agreements of sale and they have to work out their remedies in the said suits, they cannot be impleaded in a final decree proceedings, since they are neither proper nor necessary parties to the final decree proceedings.
On the other hand, Sri Namavarapu Rajeswarao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/proposed parties would contend that unless the proposed parties are added as parties to the final decree proceedings, their interest would be adversely affected and the learned Court below by following the judgments of the Apex Court rightly considered that they are necessary parties to the final decree proceedings and therefore, the order impugned needs no interference in these three revision petitions.
Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Mumbai International Airport Pvt.Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt.Ltd wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
A necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A proper party is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further relied on a decision in Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt.Ltd. V. Tosh Apartments Pvt.Ltd. wherein the Supreme Court held that since the appellant purchased the suit property in defiance of restraint order, he cannot seek impleadment in the suit; impleadment of transferee pendent lite is permissible only if his conduct is above-board.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied on a decision in K.Venkateswarlu v. K.Pedda Venkaiah wherein a full Bench of this Court held as under:
The prohibition contained in Section 4 of A.P.Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act (12 of 1972) does not apply to an agreement for sale. Agreement for sale does not create any title in the immovable property. As by reason of an agreement for sale no interest in an immovable property is created, the question of transfer of any interest thereby would not arise.
Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on a decision in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon wherein the Supreme Court while observing that an alienee pendent lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit, such an alienee can be brought on record, held as under:
The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a Court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendent lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral..
Basing on the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that even according to the 1st respondent/proposed parties they only entered into agreements of sale with the petitioners, no title has been passed to them, they shall not claim as a matter of right to be impleaded as parties to the final decree proceedings.
Here is a case wherein the 1st respondent/proposed parties claim that they entered into agreements of sale with the petitioners in respect of the part of the schedule mentioned properties in the final decree proceedings, they paid the entire sale consideration and also obtained delivery of possession of the property. If the final decree proceedings are concluded without their presence, their rights would be adversely affected. Merely because title has not been transferred to the 1st respondent/proposed parties so far, it cannot be said that they have no interest in the property at all. Whether the agreements of sale relied on by the 1st respondent/proposed parties are genuine or fabricated, prima facie they have right and interest in the property by virtue of the said agreements of sale. Therefore, I absolutely see no force in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 1st respondent/proposed parties are not even proper parties to the final decree proceedings.
In that context, it would be necessary to refer to the following judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/proposed parties.
In Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon the Supreme Court held as follows:
The object of Order 1 Rule 10 is to discourage contests on technical pleas, and to save honest and bone fide claimants from being non-suited. The power to strike out or add parties can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. Under this Rule, a person may be added as a party to a suit in the following two cases: (1) when he ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, and is not joined so, or (2) when, without his presence, the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided.
The power of a Court to add a party to a proceeding cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question is whether the right of a person may be affected if he is not added as a party. Such right, however, will include necessarily an enforceable legal right.
In Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal the Supreme Court held as follows:
A lis pendens transferee, though not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC, is entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside a decree passed against his transferor the defendant in the suit.
In I.Aga Reddy v. S.Dharneet Singh learned single Judge of this Court while dealing with the identical case, held as under:
The contention of the respondents that third parties cannot be impleaded in a suit, after a preliminary decree is passed, cannot be countenanced. The reason is that in any suit, in which a final decree is contemplated, it is deemed to be pending till such final decree is passed. Therefore, the petitioners deserve to be impleaded in the suit as defendants and as respondents in the final decree proceedings.
The application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC need not depend upon the existence of absolute rights. It would be sufficient, if the parties have some interest in the property, which is the subject matter of the suit.
Under Order I Rule 10 CPC the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, on its own or on application made by a party, direct a third party to be impleaded in the suit or proceeding for complete and effective adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. Thus, there is no impediment for impleading the parties in the final decree proceedings. The Court has wide discretion in the matter of adding the parties to the proceedings under Order I Rule 10 CPC, if the Court is of the opinion that the proposed party has a right in the subject matter and there is a possibility of his right being affected if he is not added as a party.
In the instant case, the learned Court below has rightly exercised its discretion since it thought that unless the 1st respondent/proposed parties are added as parties to the final decree proceedings, there cannot be any complete and effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties and that rights of the proposed parties would be put to jeopardized. Therefore, this Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Court below.
For the foregoing reasons, these three civil revision petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
_____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 03.06.2014