Telangana High Court
B Sridhar vs A Malliah on 2 April, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.781 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent No.1-plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2019 in I.A. No.114 of 2018 in O.S No.29 of 2018 passed by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S No.29 of 2018. O.S. No.29 of 2018 was filed seeking the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing H.No.20-2-742/7, admeasuring 120 sq. yds., consisting of ground + two floors situated at Dood Bowli, Hyderabad, against respondent Nos.2 to 4, who were none other than the brother and sisters of the plaintiff. The specific case of the revision petitioner-plaintiff was that his deceased father late B.Surya Prakash purchased the suit schedule property from one Narasamma about 35 years ago and he passed away intestate on 14.06.2016. The revision petitioner was residing in a portion of the suit schedule property on the first floor, and part of the ground floor and second floor were vacant and under the lock and key of the revision petitioner. 2
Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 The other part of the ground floor was in possession of one Mr. Bheem, who was a tenant and he was paying rents to respondent No.2 herein. The defendants in the suit started creating disturbance in the family of the plaintiff as such, he was constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
3. While the matter was posted for framing of issues, the respondent No.1 filed an application vide I.A. No.114 of 2018 seeking to implead himself as defendant No.4 in the main suit. The respondent No.1 contended that he was the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of two unregistered sale deeds dated 08.03.1990 and 09.03.1990 executed by one Smt. Ganji Rajamani and Smt. Udatta Narsamma, respectively, and the same were allegedly got validated vide File No.1813/AR/2002 and 1816/AR/2002 both dated 28.01.2002. The respondent No.1 further contended that the plaintiff in the suit was his tenant in respect of part of the suit schedule property on the first floor under an oral tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- per month. The plaintiff was not paying any rents for the past five months, as such, he was constrained to issue quit notice on 14.03.2018 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act seeking eviction and recovery of possession and 3 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 rents due. While so, he came to know that the parties to the suit colluded with each other and filed the present suit as such, it became necessary for him to be impleaded as party in view of his rights being affected in respect of the property.
4. The revision petitioner herein-plaintiff filed counter in the said application contending that the respondent No.1-petitioner had no locus standi to implead in the suit and denied that he was the owner of the suit property by virtue of two separate sale deeds and contended that the said documents were created and forged, one document was in Urdu and its translation was not even filed and denied that he was a tenant of the suit schedule property. He further contended that there was no jural relationship between him and the third party petitioner as such, the question of payment of rents would not arise. He denied that he filed a false suit for perpetual injunction in collusion with his elder brother and elder sisters and involved the petitioner's property in a frivolous litigation. He contended that on the same day of issuing legal notice on 14.03.2018 itself, the third party petitioner filed the above petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The trial court, on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel appearing before it as well as considering the citations relied by them, allowed the petition permitting the third party petitioner therein to 4 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 get impleaded himself as respondent No.4 in I.A. No.1 of 2018 and defendant No.4 in the suit, respectively.
6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the respondent No.1 therein- plaintiff, preferred this revision.
7. Heard Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Laxmikanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-proposed party.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit was the dominus litis and it was his sole prerogative to file the suit against the individuals who were interfering with his possession. The court would only incidentally go into the title of the plaintiff while deciding a suit for injunction and it was the possession which matters in deciding the suit for perpetual injunction. The trial court erred in holding that the presence of the proposed party was essential and relied upon two sale deeds allegedly executed in his favour considering them as registered documents. But, as per the petition filed by the respondent No.1 himself, those were unregistered documents which were validated by him by paying necessary stamp duty. On an application filed by the revision petitioner with the District Registrar, the revision 5 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 petitioner came to realize that the said file numbers did not correspond to any validation file, but were in fact correspondence files raising a cloud over the authenticity of the said documents. Any ownership rights in respect of an immovable property would not stand transferred through unregistered sale deeds. It was evident that the sale deeds had been created and fabricated by the proposed party only with an intention to protract the proceedings and to deprive him of his rights. Even otherwise, the sale deeds were related to properties at Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad whereas the validation was claimed to have been done in the office of the District Registrar and Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which would also prove that the sale deeds were fabricated. Presuming without admitting that the proposed party was in fact the owner of the suit schedule property also, the plaintiff had every right to be in possession of the property till he was evicted by due process of law and he was entitled to file a suit for perpetual injunction against only those individuals who were interfering with his possession. Presuming without admitting that the proposed party was in fact landlord and had issued a quit notice, the proper remedy available to him would be to initiate an independent suit for eviction, but could not insist upon to implead himself in the present proceedings as his presence would not assist the court in deciding the lis involved. The proposed party could succeed in an implead petition only if he was a proper and necessary 6 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 party to the lis and without his presence the court could not effectively decide and determine the matters in controversy in the suit. But, such was not the situation of the present case, as the issues involved could very well be adjudicated upon in the absence of the proposed party and prayed to set aside the impugned order.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand contended that the plaintiff and defendants colluded with each other and filed a false suit to defeat his rights. The proposed party also filed a suit for eviction against the revision petitioner herein, but the same was dismissed for default. The respondent No.1 had also filed the link documents along with the sale deeds filed by him of his vendor. But, no link documents were filed by the revision petitioner herein. The trial court on considering all the aspects and citations, passed the impugned order, and prayed to dismiss the revision petition.
10. As seen from the record, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, who were none other than his elder brother and sisters. His contention was that his father B. Surya Prakash was the owner of the suit schedule property and he purchased the same from one Narsamma 35 years ago and his father died intestate on 14.06.2016 leaving behind him his wife, the plaintiff and 7 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 the defendants as his legal heirs. After demise of their father, the plaintiff was residing in the first floor and part of the ground floor and second floor was vacant and the same was locked and was in possession of the plaintiff. He contended that the defendants were interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property and he lodged a police complaint in Hussani Alam Police Station on 20.12.2007. The police called the defendant No.1 to the police station, but he evaded to come to the police station and as such, he filed the suit.
11. The respondent No.1 herein-proposed party contended that he was the owner of the suit schedule property and purchased the same by virtue of two separate sale deeds dated 08.03.1990 and 09.03.1990 executed by its lawful owners Smt. Ganji Rajamani and Smt. Udatta Narasamma and the plaintiff was his tenant and he was residing in the first floor of the house bearing Municipal No.20-2-742/7, Dood Bowli, Hyderabad and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- on oral tenancy. The plaintiff was irregular in paying the monthly rents for the past five months, as such, he issued a quit notice on 14.03.2018 under Section 106 of the TP Act and a false suit was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos.1 to 3. Thus, the respondent No.1-proposed party was 8 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 admitting possession of the plaintiff but, claiming ownership over the suit schedule property.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.v. Regency Convention Centra & Hotels & Ors. 1 held the general principals with regard to Order-I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as:
"The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub- rule is extracted below:
(2) "Court may strike out or add parties.
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. A 1 AIR 2010 SC 3109 9 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 `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."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered its earlier judgment of a Two Judge Bench in Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. 2, wherein it was held that a person need not have any subsisting right or interest in the suit property for being impleaded as a defendant, and that even a person is likely to acquire an interest therein in future in appropriate cases, is entitled to be impleaded as a party.
14. In the above case, it was held that:
"Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperuma [2005(6) SCC 733]. He has submitted that in this case it has been held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a busybody or interloper with no semblance of title cannot be impleaded in such a suit. That would unnecessarily protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. However, the aforesaid decision will have no application where a third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute.........It cannot be laid down as an 2 2007 (10) SCC 82 10 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. If C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment."
15. In the present case, the proposed party was a third party claiming a right over the disputed property. He was not a necessary party as his presence was not essential for the court to decide the lis involved in it. But, however, as the respondent No.1-the proposed party was having interest in the litigation, he is a proper party and his presence would help in adjudicating the matter comprehensively as his rights would be affected by the outcome of the suit.
16. Under Order-I, Rule 10 of CPC, the court has discretion to implead any person as a party if his presence is necessary for effectively adjudicating the matter. Even if no relief is sought against the third party, he might be added if his rights are linked to the subject matter of the suit.
17. As the respondent No.1-proposed party was claiming ownership and legal interest in the suit schedule property and as he was contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff was a collusive one, the presence of the petitioner might be necessary though no relief was sought by the plaintiff against him. As such, this Court considers that the order of the trial court in impleading the respondent No.1-proposed party as defendant No.4 in the 11 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.781 of 2019 suit, who was having a substantial legal interest in the property was not erroneous to set aside the same.
18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 21.01.2019 in I.A. No.114 of 2018 in O.S No.29 of 2018 passed by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J April 02, 2025 KTL