Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mannem Venkata Narasimha Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 November, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2177 of 2022
Between:
Mannem Venkata Narasimha Rao,
S/o Satyanarayana, R/o Plot No.1259/A,
Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
... Petitioner/3rd party
And
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.
by District Collector,
SPSR Nellore District
... Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Aduumalli Krishna Mohan,
S/o Kanaklingeswara Rao,
R/o Opp: Maris Stella College,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
... Respondent/Defendant
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Challa Gunaranjan
Counsel for respondents : --
ORDER:
Third party to the suit filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.08.2022 in I.A.No.222 of 2022 in O.S.No.82 of 2012 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
2
2. 1st respondent herein being the plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.82 of 2012 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the property.
3. Sole defendant filed written statement and is contesting the suit. When suit is coming up for arguments, third party filed I.A.N.222 of 2022 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to implead him as 2nd defendant in the suit.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was inter alia contended that the petitioner/third party purchased the schedule property for consideration of Rs.5,35,650/- under a possessory agreement of sale dated 23.04.2005 executed by the 2nd respondent/sole defendant in the suit and has been in possession and enjoyment of the property; that when he recently approached the defendant for getting regular sale deed, he came to know about pendency of the suit and filed I.A.No.222 of 2022 to implead him as 2nd defendant in the suit.
5. Respondents reported no counter.
6. By order dated 16.08.2022, trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 3
7. Heard Sri Umar Abdullah, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the revision petitioner on record.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that revision petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property under possessory agreement of sale dated 23.04.2005 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Revision petitioner is not aware of the pendency of the suit and hence, he could not file the application at the earliest point of time. Revision petitioner approached the sole defendant in the suit and demanded to execute regular sale deed. Recently he came to know about the pendency of the suit and immediately he filed the application and hence, prayed the Court to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.
9. Suit O.S.No.82 of 2012 is filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession from the defendant. Agreement of sale was executed in the year 2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit is reserved for judgment, however, would contend that the interlocutory application is filed when the suit is coming up for the evidence of defendant. It is pertinent to mention here that the revision petitioner is claiming possession under 4 possessory agreement of sale dated 23.04.2005. As can be seen from the affidavit, nothing is forthcoming regarding the petitioner's getting regular sale deed from the defendant. Apart from that the possessory agreement of sale is an unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The agreement of sale will not create any rights in favour of the petitioner over the property. The suit is coming up for arguments.
10. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. There is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and the trial Court considered all the aspects and rightly dismissed the application. Hence, no interference is warranted and accordingly, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 02.11.2022 KA 5 191 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2177 of 2022 Date : 02.11.2022 KA