Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Puttur Murugesa Reddy vs A. Subbamma And Ors. on 30 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993(1)ALT313
ORDER S.V. Maruthi, J.
1. This Revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati in I.A.No. 355/92 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for impleading him as the 6th defendant in the suit.
2. The facts in brief areas follows: One P. Govinda Reddy had three sons viz., P. Gangi Reddi, Chengalraya Reddy and Subrahmanyam Reddy and one daughter, Rajamma. His wife's name is Kannamma. The said Govinda Reddy died on 14-10-1981. Plaintiff is the daughter of Gangi Reddy. Chengalraya Reddy has no children and Subrahmanyam Reddy has three sons. The petitioner in the revision petition is the son of Subrahmanyam Reddy. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of plaint A and B Schedule properties. The suit is filed on the basis of a registered settlement deed dt.25-3-1982 executed by her father P. Gangi Reddy. She impleaded the father, Chengalraya Reddy, Subrahmanayam Reddy and grand-mother Kannamma. During the pendency of the suit, Kannamma died and her daughter, Rajamma was brought on record.
3. The defence in the suit is that Govinda Reddy executed a will on 5-10-1981 under which he bequeathed the properties in favour of his wife viz., Kannamma and she was given a life interest in the said properties. Under the will, after the death of Kannamma, remainder is given to the grandsons of Govinda Reddy i.e., the sons of Subrahmanyam Reddy. The two sons of Subrahmanyamreddy are minors and the present petitioner became a major. Therefore, he filed a petition to implead him as a party to the suit.
4. The petitioner also claimed the suit schedule properties not only under the will executed by the grandfather dt.5-10-81, but also under the two wills executed by Kannamma i.e., his grandmother on 7-11-1990 and 11-7-1991.
5. The Prl. Subordinate Judge dismissed the application for impleading the petitioner, on the ground that unless the wills executed by Govinda Reddy and Kannamma are proved, he cannot be treated as a necessary party. Holding as above, he rejected the petition. Hence the revision petition before me.
6. The main contention of Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a necessary party, as he has a direct interest in the suit schedule property in his dual capacity, firstly, that he is entitled to the property by virtue of the will executed by the grandfather dt.5-10-1981 and also by virtue of the wills executed by his grandmother dt.7-11-90 and 11-7-1991. Secondly he is entitled to come on record as a legal representative of Kannamma, who was impleaded as defendant No. 4 in the suit and who died during the pendency of the proceedings. He is entitled to come on record as a person interested in the subject matter of the suit even on the strength of the original will executed by the grandfather. In support of his contention," the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions reported in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, . Udit Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue, , B. Venkataperayya v. G. Adilakshmamma, 1971 (1) An.W.R. 94, K. Savithri v. Chinnayyamma 1988 (1) ALT 528, S. Kumar and Ors. v. The Super Hotel, 1992 (1) An.W.R. 635, and Khaja Abdul v. Mahabub Saheb, . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the above decisions, he is entitled to come on record and the order of the Prl. Subordinate Judge is without jurisdiction.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the application to come on record is filed at a belated stage only, to drag on the proceedings. He also submitted that in case the will is proved, the petitioner will automatically get the properties and, therefore, he is not a necessary party, as the suit will be dismissed. Secondly, even if the will is not proved, he will get his share of the property, and, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party.
8. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is a necessary party, and whether the Prl. Subordinate Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in rejecting his prayer to implead him as a party to the suit proceedings.
9. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Code, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, add as plaintiff or defendant, whose presence before the Court is necessary, in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.
10. Interpreting the above provision, this court in Khaja Abdul v. Mahabub Saheb held the expression "settle all the questions involved in the suit" used in Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. is susceptive of a liberal and wide interpretation so as to take in the final adjudication of all the questions pertaining to the subject-matter thereof..... The crucial test for the addition or otherwise of a particular party as defendant or plaintiff is whether the presence of such party is necessary or at least proper without whom there can be no effective and final adjudication of all issues involved in the suit with regard to the same subject-matter. It was also held that the intendment and object of this provision is to invest the Court with ample power and jurisdiction to strike out the name of any party improperly joined or to add any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In other words, the jurisdiction is vested in the court to add a party, provided his presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit:
11. In the decision reported in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum it was held that in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation.
12. In the decision reported in Udit Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue (cited as No. 2), it was held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.
13. On the facts of the present case the plaintiff is claiming the suit schedule property under a registered settlement deed executed by the father, whereas the defence set up by the defendants is that the grandfather of the plaintiff i.e., P. Govinda Reddy executed a will under which he bequeathed the life estate to his wife, and a remainder to the grandsons. The petitioner in the revision petition is the grandson. The petitioner is also claiming the property under two wills executed by the grandmother viz., Kannamma. The question whether the wills were validly executed, genuine or not, is a matter to be decided in the suit. Since the petitioner is claiming the property under the Will executed by the grandfather, and also under the will executed by the grandmother, he has a direct interest in the suit schedule property. The presence of the petitioner is necessary, in order to enable the Court effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Since the claim of the petitioner is under two wills, he has a direct interest in the suit schedule property and he is a necessary party, and, therefore, the Prl. Subordinate Judge ought to have impleaded him as a party to the suit.
14. Even as a legal representative of Kannamma the petitioner is claiming, under the two wills executed by her, he is entitled to come on record. In order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, it is necessary that the petitioner should be added as a party in the suit.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. The Prl. Subordinate Judge is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of this order.