Kolluri Kasturi , Mary Kasturi v. Parikala Rangamma

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL C.R.P.No.2527 of 2010

ORDER

This revision is directed against the order dated 29.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.520 of 2009 in O.S.No.1322 of 2008 by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada. 2.

The first respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.1322 of 2008 for injunction simpliciter in respect of the suit schedule property against respondents 2 and 3/defendants. The petitioner being a third party filed I.A.No.520 of 2009 to implead her as third defendant in the suit claiming that the suit schedule property belongs to her father, by name, Gudise Anjaiah, and after his death, the property devolved upon her. By order impugned, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A., holding that the presence of petitioner in the suit for injunction is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 3.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the suit schedule property originally belongs to the father of petitioner, by name Gudise Anjaiah, and the petitioner is only his legal heir, but the first respondent/plaintiff is claiming that she is the owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property by virtue of a will deed dated 15.05.2005 said to have been executed by her father,by name, Chembodi Galib.

MSKJ, J CRP No.2527 of 2010 4.

A perusal of the impugned order would show that there was a dispute with regard to the boundaries of the properties belonging to the brothers. The suit is filed for injunction simpliciter. The documents filed by petitioner do not disclose that the suit schedule property belongs to her father, but the site of Godise Anjaiah was shown as one of the boundaries of the properties covered by the said documents. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the revision petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit. It is also on record that during partition of the suit schedule property, the first respondent/plaintiff also made construction over the said property. 5.

In that view of the matter, the trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record and rejected the request of the petitioner to implead her as party defendant in the suit. However, it is always open to the revision petitioner to work out the remedies available under law to establish her title over the suit schedule property. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

6.

With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand dismissed. _________________ M.S.K. JAISWAL, J.

17th July, 2017 sj