Telangana High Court
Vemuluri Srinivas vs Dodla Suresh on 15 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.7 OF 2023
ORDER:
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.10 of 2017, dated 29.11.2022 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem.
2.1 Petitioner herein is the respondent No.1 - plaintiff and respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner - proposed defendant in I.A.No.3 of 2022.
2.2 It is mentioned in the cause title of the Civil Revision Petition that respondent Nos.2 to 9 are not necessary parties to this petition.
3. Respondent No.1 herein - proposed defendant No.9 filed petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead him as defendant No.9 in the suit (vide I.A.No.3 of 2022). It is stated in the affidavit that Vemuluri Venkateswarlu during his life time has executed a will in favour of Vemuluri Anasurya bequeathing 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties vide will deed dated 18.11.2008. By virtue of the will deed said Anasurya became the owner of the suit schedule 'A' to 'C' properties with all rights and she was blessed with one 2/10 BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023 son and daughter. Daughter of Anasurya is defendant No.6 in the suit (respondent No.7 herein), she fell in love with a person and left her parents house; son who is defendant No.5 in the suit (respondent No.6 herein) is a close friend to him for the past 18 years and Venkateswarlu and Anasurya have treated him like that of their son as he used to assist them for their medical necessities. Anasurya fell sick and she has taken the assistance of respondent No.1 herein - proposed defendant for her medical treatment, out of such magnitude towards him as he has spend huge expenses towards her, she has executed a will on 06.07.2015, bequeathing 'B' and 'C' items of suit schedule properties in his favour. Anasurya died on 16.01.2016. Respondent No.1 herein - petitioner - proposed defendant made an application before the concerned authorities for mutation of his name in the concerned records and the municipal authorities informed him that litigation is pending before the Court with regard to 'A', 'B' and 'C' items of the suit schedule properties, then he approached respondent No.6 herein, who made him believe that false litigation is created by the petitioner - respondent - plaintiff posing as legal heir. Thus, he is a necessary party to the suit proceedings and prayed to implead him as defendant No.9 in the suit.
4. Petitioner - respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed counter admitting the death of Venkateswarlu on 26.07.2011 and denied 3/10 BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023 the other contents of the affidavit. It is further stated in the counter that respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant is no way concerned neither to the family nor family members of the other respondents. Venkateswarlu died intestate and never executed any will to anybody. After the death of Venkateswarlu, the property has become joint family property and it was in joint and constructive possession of one and all. Anasurya is the second wife of Venkateswarlu and she used to manage the family property. Anasurya cannot execute and bequeath the joint family properties to third properties, whereas Anasurya has executed a registered gift deed vide Document bearing No.3265/2015 on 13.08.2015. No mother would bequeath the properties to a stranger, when son and daughter are very much alive (respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein). Criminal case is registered against respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant when he tried to interfere in the suit schedule properties in Crime No.338/2020, dated 28.10.2022 of PS Paloncha Town for the offences under Section 294-B, 323, 380, 427, 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant is not a necessary party to the suit and prayed to dismiss the same.
5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has allowed the implead application filed by respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in 4/10 BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023 O.S.No.10 of 2017 on 29.11.2022 holding that his presence in deciding the issues involved in the main suit is concerned, he is a necessary party in whose absence an effective order or a complete adjudication on the point involved in the present suit cannot be made, which is the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case, that respondent No.1- petitioner - proposed defendant is no way concerned with the family of the petitioner and other respondents and that when respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant made a claim over the suit schedule properties by virtue of the will and the remedy available to him is elsewhere but not in the suit filed by the petitioner. Suit is of the year 2017 and after the lapse of five years respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant set up a different claim over the suit schedule properties. Further, the Trial Court has committed gross irregularity and illegality in passing the impugned order and prayed to set aside the same.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant contended that Anasurya during her life time has executed a will deed in his favour on 06.07.2015 bequeathing 'B' and 'C' schedule properties, he is a proper and necessary party to the lis and that the order passed by the trial Court is correct, does 5/10 BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023 not require interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
8. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material.
9. Now the point for consideration is: whether the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.10 of 2017 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court.
10. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).
11.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff and he filed suit for partition, separate possession, declaration to declare the registered gift deed dated 13.08.2015, registered sale deed dated 26.11.2015, registered simple mortgage deed dated 11.07.2017, declaration to declare that the family membership certificate dated 08.07.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Palvoncha is null and void and not 6/10 BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023 enforceable under law and also for perpetual injunction restraining respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 herein, who are defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit, from alienating the suit schedule properties to third parties.
11.2 It is further stated in the plaint that Venkateswarlu has married Parvathamma and through her they were blessed with the petitioner herein and defendant Nos.1 to 4 (respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein). Parvathamma died due to illness on 31.12.1976. Thereafter, Venkateswarlu has married Anasurya in the year 1979 through her they were blessed with defendant Nos.5 and 6 [respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein]. Venkateswarlu died intestate on 26.07.2011 leaving behind the petitioner - plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 [respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein] as legalheirs and successors to his estate.
11.3. After the death of Venkateswarlu, Anasurya used to manage the properties and she developed greedy eye, intended to grab away the property and obtained family members certificate on 08.07.2015 with dishonest intention and got fabricated registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.5 [respondent No.6 herein] vide document No.3265/2015 dated 13.08.2015. Defendant No.5 has created a sham registered sale deed vide document No.7382/2015 dated 26.11.2015 in favour of defendant No.7 (respondent No.8 7/10 BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023 herein) in respect of 'A' schedule property and also created a sham registered mortgage deed bearing document No.2801/2017 dated 11.07.2017 in favour of defendant No.8 (respondent No.9 herein) in respect of 'B' schedule property. 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the commercial shops and let out to different tenants and the income from the shops is Rs.40,000/- per month. 'C' schedule property is a residential house, which is also let out at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the tenant. Anasurya also died on 16.01.2016.
11.4. 'A' schedule property is RCC house bearing No.13-1-21 in an extent of 250 sq.yds, 'B' schedule property is RCC house bearing No.13-1-18 in an extent of 395 sq.yds and 'C' schedule property is RCC house bearing No.13-1-163 in an extent of 220 sq.yds with specific boundaries.
12. Defendant Nos.1 to 8 in the suit [respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein] filed their written statement and contesting the suit.
13. It is worth mentioning that the specific contention of respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant in the affidavit is that Venkateswarlu has executed a will deed in favour of Anasurya on 18.11.2008 bequeathing 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties, in turn Anasurya has executed will deed on 06.07.2015 8/10 BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023 bequeathing 'B' and 'C' items of the plaint schedule properties to him.
14. Admittedly the children born to Anasurya are respondent No.6 and 7 herein [defendant Nos.5 and 6] and it is also the contention of the respondent No.1 in the affidavit that Anasurya has treated him like that of her son thereby bequeathed 'B' and 'C' items of the plaint schedule properties. Petitioner - respondent No.1 - plaintiff is challenging the gift deed dated 13.08.2015 executed in favour of defendant No.5 [respondent No.6 herein] and also challenged the registered sale deed dated 26.11.2015 and registered simple mortgage deed dated 11.07.2017 executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 (respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein) in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.
15. Admittedly suit is filed in the year 2017 and the respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant came up with the application to implead him as defendant No.9 in the suit in the month of November 2022.
16. On reading of Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC which states that the presence of a party before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 9/10
BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023
17. In M/s. J.N.Real Estte Vs. Shailendra Pradhan and others 2025 INSC 611, the Supreme Court has dealt with who is a proper party and who is a necessary party at paragraph No.32 and 33 which reads as under:
"32. Having regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the original defendant no.8 (appellant herein) as one of the defendants in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We say so because the genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness of the documents is to be looked into in the course of the trial. A party who is seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be termed as a proper party. There is a fine distinction between a necessary party and a proper party. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit.
33. We need not say anything further in the matter. We may only say that insofar as the transaction between (Late) Mr. Sameer Ghosh and the original defendant no.8 (appellant herein) is concerned, the same shall be a subject matter of trial. We do not express any opinion in this regard at this point of time. We may only say that the presence of the appellant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit. We say so while giving additional regard to the fact that the original plaintiff has not opposed the impleadment of the original defendant no. 8 in his suit. We keep all contentions open for all the parties concerned to be canvassed before the Trial Court."10/10
BRMR, J CRP.No.7 of 2023
18. Respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant is claiming schedule B and C properties through the will executed by the deceased V.Anasurya. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all by the Court. Presence of the respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit. The learned trial Court has rightly observed in its order at paragraph No.8 that the respondent No.1 - petitioner - proposed defendant is necessary for deciding the issue involved in the suit, and the genuineness of the will is a triable issue.
19. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court impleading the respondent No.1 - petitioner as one of the defendant, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
20. There are no merits it the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
21. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s stands closed.
______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 15.10.2025 Dua