APHC010567522023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[ 3206 ]

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2903 OF 2023

Between:
1. Setty Harinatha Reddy,, S/o. S. Pedda Basi Reddy, Aged about 60
years, Hindu, R/o. Residing at Kamathampalle, Angallu Village,
Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District.

...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. Kutagolla Khasim Saheb AKashanna, S/o. Rasool Saheb. Aged
about 65 years, (Proposed Defendant No.5)
2. Kutagolla Ali Saheb, S/n. Rasool Saheb, Aged about 58 years,
(Proposed Defendant No.6)
3. Kutagolla Baba Saheb, S/o. Rasool Saheb, Aged about 58 years,
(Proposed Defendant No.7)
4. Kutagolla Bavaji, S/o. Mahaboob Saheb, Aged about 42 years,
(Proposed Defendant No.8) Are residing at Kurabalakota Village
and Mandal, Annamaiah District, AP, 517350
5. N Ammaji, D/o. K. Mahaboob Saheb, W/o. N.BabaFakruddeen,
Aged about 47 years, R/o. Mosque Street, Burakayalakota Village,
Mulakalacheruvu Mandal, Annamaiah District, AP, 517351
(Proposed Defendant No.9)
6. Morumpalle Srinija Reddy, D/o. Late M. Ranga Reddy, Aged about
20 years,
7. Morumpalle Srihitha, D/o. Late M. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 17
years, Minor represented by her Guardian, Paternal grandfather M.
Devi Reddy
8. Morumpalle Akkayamma, W/o. M. Devi Reddy, Aged about 68
years,
9. Morumpalle Devi Reddy, S/o. M. Ramappa Reddy, Aged about 73
years, All the above are residing at Madireddygaripalle,
Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District. (Respondents No. 6 to 9 are
not Necessary parties.)

...RESPONDENTS
 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that
in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court
may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition having been
aggrieved by the Order dated 11.09.2023 passed in I.A.No.281/2022 in
O.S.NO. 22 of 2021, on the file of II Addl. District Judge at Madanapalle

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in 0.S.No.22/2021,
pending on the file of II Addl. District Judge at Madanapalle,

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. N PRAMOD

Counsel for the Respondents: MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.22 of 2021 in the Court of

the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, against respondents 6 to 9

for specific performance of an agreement of sale, relating to certain land

situated in Sy.Nos 1560 and 1566/B-1 of Kurabalakota Revenue Village

and Mandal, Chittoor District. During the pendency of the suit,

respondents 1 to 5 herein filed I.A.No.281 of 2022, under Order I Rule 10

C.P.C., for impleading themselves as defendants 5 to 9 in the suit. The

case of respondents 1 to 5 was that they are joint owners of the suit

schedule property and had an undivided interest in the said property.

2. Respondents 1 to 5 contended that they had also moved

O.S.No.622 of 2020 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Madanapalle, for partition and separate possession of their share in the

land and the same is pending. Respondents 1 to 5 contended that any

judgment or decree in the said case would adversely affect their right and

interest in the property, as the land which would fall to their share could

not have been sold by respondents 6 to 9 and any such sale would

effectively take away their rights in the property and would require further

litigation for recovery of the said land, unless they are impleaded as

defendants in the suit.

3. The petitioner herein and respondents 6 to 9 contested the

application. The case in opposition was that respondents 1 to 5 are

neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit and as such cannot seek

to implead themselves under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C.

4. The trial Court, after considering both the contentions,

allowed the application by order dated 11.09.2023. This order is the

subject matter of the present revision petition.

5. Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that respondents 1 to 5, who are raising an independent

claim against the property, are not necessary or proper parties to the

case. He would submit that persons making an independent claim over the

property cannot be impleaded in a suit, under the provisions of Order I

Rule 10 C.P.C. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors.,1 (paras 4, 6 and 14),

1
(2005) 6 SCC 733
Sumtibai and Ors., vs. Paras Finance Co., and Ors.,2, and Moreshar

Yadaorao Mahajan vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) Thr. Lrs.,

and Ors.,3.

6. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the order of the trial Court does not

require any interference. He contends that alienation of the property, by

respondents 6 to 9, in which respondents 1 to 5 have a share, would

adversely affect the rights of respondents 1 to 5 and would also lead to

multiplicity of proceedings, as respondents 1 to 5 would have to file

separate suits for enforcing their rights in the decree, which may be

obtained in O.S.No.22 of 2021. He would further submit that any person,

who has a right to some relief against any of the parties in the suit and

where no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such a party,

would be entitled to implead themselves into the suit.

7. The facts of the case are that respondents 1 to 5 claim that

they have an undivided interest in the land, which is the subject matter of

the agreement of sale, and that they are in possession of a part of the

land, though no partition as such has been affected between respondents

1 to 5 and respondents 6 to 9.

8. The question that arises before this Court is – whether

respondents 1 to 5 can be treated as necessary or proper parties, which

2
(2007) 10 SCC 82
3
2022 LIveLaw (SC) 802 = 2022 SCC Online SC 1307
would entitle respondents 1 to 5 to be impleaded as defendants in the

suit.

9. In Sumtibai and Ors., vs. Paras Finance Co., and Ors.,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with a case wherein the appellants

were legal representatives of the defendant against whom suit for specific

performance of an agreement of sale had been filed. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court, after reviewing various judgments cited before it,

including the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors., had held as

follows:

“14. Keeping the principles as stated above in mind, let us

now, on the admitted facts of this case, first consider whether
Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are necessary parties or not. In
our opinion, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are not necessary
parties as an effective decree could be passed in their
absence as they had not purchased the contracted property
from the vendor after the contract was entered into. They
were also not necessary parties as they would not be affected
by the contract entered into between the appellant and
Respondents 2 and 3. In the case of Anil Kumar Singh v.
Shivnath Mishra [(1995) 3 SCC 147] , it has been held that
since the applicant who sought for his addition is not a party
to the agreement for sale, it cannot be said that in his
absence, the dispute as to specific performance cannot be
decided. In this case at para 9, the Supreme Court while
deciding whether a person is a necessary party or not in a suit
for specific performance of a contract for sale made the
following observation: (SCC p. 150)

“Since the respondent is not a party to the agreement of

sale, it cannot be said that without his presence the
 dispute as to specific performance cannot be determined.
Therefore, he is not a necessary party.”
(emphasis supplied)

11. In Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs. Vyankatesh

Sitaram Bhedi (D) Thr. Lrs., and Ors., a suit for specific performance

of an agreement of sale was decreed by the trial Court and confirmed by

the appellate Court. In the second appeal, the High Court took the view

that the property in question was a joint family property and as such

specific performance of the agreement could not have been granted. It

was contended before the Hon’ble High Court that once the trial Court and

appellate Court had held that the suit schedule property had fallen to the

share of the vendor, after partition, it was not necessary to join other

members of the family or other coparceners as defendants in the suit and

consequently, the High Court was in error.

12. In that context the Hon’ble Supreme Court went into the

question whether the wife and sons of the defendant vendor are

necessary parties to the suit and whether their non-joinder would non-suit

the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International

Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels

Private Limited and Ors.,4 had held as follows:

17. This Court, in the case of Mumbai International Airport

Private Limited (supra), has observed thus:

4
(2010) 7 SCC 417
 “15. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to
have been joined as a party and in whose absence no
effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If
a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is
liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who,
though not a necessary party, is a person whose
presence would enable the court to completely,
effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters
in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person
in favour of or against whom the decree is to be
made. If a person is not found to be a proper or
necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to
implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The
fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in
a suit property, after the suit is decided against the
plaintiff, will not ma1ke such person a necessary party
or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.”

18. It could thus be seen that a “necessary party” is a

person who ought to have been joined as a party and in
whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by
the court. It has been held that if a “necessary party” is not
impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.”

13. The aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in both the cases is that a person seeking to implead himself/herself in a

suit, under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., claiming to be a necessary party, would

have to fulfil two tests. Firstly, the person would have to demonstrate that

he has some right or title in the property in question; and secondly, that

no decree can be passed resolving the disputes before the Court finally, in

his absence.
 14. In the present case, the claim of respondents 1 to 5 is that

they are joint owners with an undivided interest in the property in

question. Consequently, any decree passed in favour of the petitioner

herein, in the absence of respondents 1 to 5, would not give a quietus to

the case as respondents 1 to 5 would assert title and this would lead to

further litigation, which can be avoided by allowing respondents 1 to 5 to

implead themselves in the suit.

15. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.281 of 2022 in

O.S.No.22 of 2021. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Js.
 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

C.R.P.No.2903 of 2023

16th February, 2024

Js.