Nagapuri Saritha, Warangal Dist And Another v. Tallapalli Yadagiri, Warangal Dist And Three Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURAALE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6114 OF 201 6 Between:

1. Nagapuri Saritha, D/o Baswaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ: Student, Fl/o H.No.25-7-48, Somidi, Warangal District.

2. Macherla Srisailam, S/o Late Agaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, F/o H.No.2-23, Thanedarpalli Village, Ghanpur (Station) Mandal, Warangal District.

...PETITIONERS AND '1. Tallapalli Yadagiri , S/o Late Venaktaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, Fi"/o Presently Nawabpet Village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal District.

2. Kanukati Sujatha, W/o Venkataiah, Aged about 4'l years, Occ; Household, Fi/o H.No.25-7-73, Vishnupur, Kazipet, Warangal District.

3. Nagapuri Kalavathi,, Wo Basavaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Household, Fi/o H.No.25-7-48, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal City and District.

4. Talapalli Anjaiah,, S/o Venkati, Aged about 35 years, Occ:Agriculture, Rl/o H.No.25-7-48, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal City and District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to against the order Dl:21-10-20'16 passed in l.A.No. 235 of 2016 in O.S.NO. 859 of 2010 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

CRPMP. NO: 8011 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

stay all further proceedings in o.s.No. 859 of 20i0 on the file of the I Additionat Senior Civil Judge, at Warangal, pending disposal of the main C.R.p. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. S CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: G L NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER

\

'-7/ THE HOI{'BLE DR. WSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.61l4 of 2OLG ORDER:

Heard on petitioners' side. No representation on respondents' side.

2.

Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No. 235 of 2016 in O.S. No. 859 of 2O10, dated 21.10.2016.

3.

The Interlocutory Application under challenge was filed by respondent Nos. I and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs to the suit, under Order 1 Rule 1O(2) C.p.C. seeking the Court to permit them to implead the revision petitioners herein as the defendants to the suit. Considering the grounds urged and also considering the pleas taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the request made is justifiable and, thereby, allowed the application filed praying to implead the revision petitioners herein as o'4 -/

Dr.CSL, J CRP.No.67 74 of 2016 parties to the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners are before t.l.is Court.

4.

The suit in O.S.No.859 of 2O1O is Iiled for partition of the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that the first revision petitioner is the daughter of Basavaiah, whose propertSz is under question. The version of the plaintiffs to the suit i.e. respondent No.l and 2 herein is that themselves and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are members of Hindu Undivided Mitakshara Family and that they inherited the suit schedule property. Their contention is that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.l executed a gift deed in favour of the revision petitioner No. 1 herein who is none other than her daughter, and tJle revision petitioner No. I in tum along with defenda_nt No.l executed a registered sale deed in respect of part of the suit property in favour of the revision petitioner No.2 herein. By stating that they are not entitled to ao so, respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to implead them as parties to the suit. I However, the revision petitioners resisted the relief sought

I Dr.CSL, J CRP.No.67 74 of 2016 ( for by contending that the plaintiffs to the suit have nothing to do with the said property and that another suit vide O.S.No.79O of 2011, which was filed by the revision petitioner No.1 for grant of perpetual injunction, is pending before the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Having considered the rival pleas, the trial Court came to a conclusion that their presence is essential and, therefore, granted permission to implead them as defendants to the suit.

5.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the property that was gifted to revision petitioner No.l is not the subject matter for partition and, therefore, impleading her in the suit is not necessary. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also states that the revision petitioner No.2, who got title through a registered sale deed and became owner of the property, over which the plaintiffs to the suit, have no claim or title, cannot be impleaded as party and, therefore, the Court ought not to have entertained the application.

Dr.CSL, J CRP.No.67 74 of 2016 6.

However, a perusa_l of the impugned order revea_ls that the trial Court taking all the aspects into consideration, carne to the conclusion that the relief sought for by the plaintiffs to the suit is justiliable. The specific contention of the plaintiffs to the suit is that, the transactions that went on in respect of property in question are hit by Section 62 of Transfer of property Act. Whether the said contention is justifiable or not is to be discussed and deliberated after due trial.

7 .

The plaintiffs to the suit cannot be precluded from brining all the necessary parties on record. Further, having regard to the nature of the /ls, this Court is of tJre opinion that their presence is essential for disposal of the suit in a proper and justifiable manner. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned interference by this Court.

order warranting 8.

Therefore, this Court concludes that there grounds to set aside the impugned order.

are no I I il

/ Dr,CSL, J CRP.No.6r74 of 2076 Resultantly, the Re,u-ision petition is dismissed, confirming the order rendered by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.235 of 2016 in O.S.No.859 of 2O10, dated 21.1O.2016

10. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

\^ SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FICER To

1. The I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal.

2. One CC to SRl. S CHALAPATHI RAO Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRl. G L NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

5. One Spare Copy IKV SB \ .V

I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 3104t2022 ( 1 e STAr6 2 B JUL 2022 q co f'

'il ,] ,,1'i // o65p,r1e I

ORDER

I I CRP.No.6114 of 2016 I I I DISMISSING THE C.R.P t