IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 4205 of 2008 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: Boggavarapu Sreenivasa Rao S/o Rama Krishna Gupta R/o Kallur ( V & M ) Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND Nandigama Venkateswara Rao S/o Bhadraiah R/o Ayyappa Hotel Main Road, Kambhampadu (V) A- Konduru (M) Krishna District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA FOR RVAK-1 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 4207 of 2008 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: Boggavarapu Nagaraju S/o Rama Krishna Gupta R/o Kallur ( V & M ) Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND Nandigama Venkateswara Rao S/o Bhadraiah R/o Ayyappa Hotel Main Road, Kambhampadu (V) A- Konduru (M) Krishna District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA FOR The Court made the following : PSR, J. C.R.P.Nos. 4205 and 4207 of 2008 Common Order As in these two revision petitions, common questions of law and facts arise and as in both the matters the respondent is one and the same, both these revision petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to, as they are arrayed before the court below. 2. CRP.No. 4205 of 2008 is filed against the orders in I.A.No. 289 of 2007 in O.S.No. 98 of 2007 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, Khammam District and C.R.P.No. 4207 of 2008 is filed against the orders in I.A.No. 290 of 2007 in O.S.No. 947 of 2007 of the same court. In both these cases, the defendant, who is the respondent in the Interlocutory applications, as well as in these revision petitions, has borrowed money from the respective petitioners/plaintiffs, who are also the petitioners herein. The plaintiffs filed the respective suits for recovery of money on the basis of the promissory notes and according to the plaintiffs, the respondent herein with an intention to defeat the interest of the plaintiffs, executed three registered settlement deeds in favour of the proposed defendants No.2 to 4, who are no other than his wife and two daughters, for the entire property held by him. The settlement deeds were executed only to defeat the suit claims. As such the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to implead the wife and daughters of the respondent, in whose favour the properties were settled, as defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit. Ex P1 to P-3 are the settlement deeds executed on 6-10-2007 by the respondent. 3. The contention of the respondent is that the proposed parties are not necessary parties to the suit, as they are in no way connected with the suit transaction. 4. After considering the entire material on record, the leaned trial judge dismissed both the above interlocutory applications under the orders impugned herein. 5. There is no dispute about the facts and about the main question of the respondent/defendant executing three settlement deeds gifting his entire properties in favour of the proposed defendants. 6. In these circumstances, the point that arises for consideration is whether the proposed parties can be impleaded as Defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the suit. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the proposed parties are universal donees, they are necessary parties to the suit, as, in case, the plaintiff ultimately succeeds and wants to execute the decree that may be passed in his favour, it has to be against the same property gifted by the defendant. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as the proposed parties have nothing to do with the suit transaction, they cannot be impleaded as parties to the suit. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on certain decisions, which are not that relevant for deciding the question in issue. Before the trial Court, a decision of this court in Lingareddi Sreenivasulu Reddi (died) v. D. Muniratnam Reddi[1] was cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The learned trial judge held that the said decision is not applicable, which in my opinion is incorrect. In the above case, the first defendant filed a suit against the second defendant for recovery of Rs.200-00 with interest, due on a promissory note executed on 5.7.1957. The said suit was decreed in favour of the first defendant. Thereafter, he filed E.P.No.9 of 1964 for execution of the decree by sale of the property of the second defendant, on which attachment before judgment was levied. The plaintiff filed E.A.No.297 of 1964 in E.P.No.9 of 1964 for raising the attachment basing his claim on the ground that the property under attachment belongs to him. The claim petition was rejected by the execution court. She filed a suit for declaration of his title and pleaded that the property under attachment was settled upon him by the second defendant by gift deed dated: 27.6.1958. Second defendant/judgment debtor was the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and also his sister's son. The trial court held that there was no unavoidable necessity for the second defendant to settle the property under attachment upon the plaintiff and that it was so done in order to escape his liability flowing from his debt. It also held that the plaintiff was a universal donee within the meaning of S. 128 of the Transfer of Property Act and was therefore liable to discharge the debt of his donor and dismissed the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in regard to the property settled upon him by the second defendant under Ex A-1, and prayed to pass a decree in relation to item No.3, which was not the subject matter of the settlement under Ex A-1. 9. In the second appeal before the High Court, one of the contentions was that though the plaintiff was universal donee from the second defendant within the meaning of S. 128 of the Transfer of Property Act, the properties which he got from the second defendant could not have been attached straight away in execution of a decree against the second defendant; that universal donee is certainly liable to discharge the debts of his donor; but that liability can be fastened upon him only after impleading him as a defendant to the suit or by a suit against him. In support of this contention, the decision of the Travancore and Cochin High Court in Muhamathu Kunju v. Muhammathu Kunju[2] was relied. 10. The High Court ultimately held that the properties of the second defendant in the hands of the plaintiff could be proceeded against by the first defendant even though the plaintiff was not a party to the suit, thereby holding that even in case, the universal donee is not a party also, the decree can be executed against him and further impliedly holding that the universal donee can be a party to such kind of suit. In fact, as referred to above by me earlier, that was the contention before the High Court i.e., saying the liability cannot be fastened upon the universal donee without impleading him as a party in the suit. 11. In Muhamathu Kunju case (2nd above), referred in the judgment of the High Court in Lingareddi Sreenivasulu Reddi case (1 above), it was held that " it is clear from what we have sated above that the decree holder cannot have any relief against the respondent from the in their hands by proceeding in execution. The right a party to follow the property in the hands of a universal donee is a right which has to be exercised by a suit. We came across several cases in the books, where suits were bought against a donor or a donee together or against donee alone after the donor had died. The right which a Creditor has against a universal donee cannot be exercised merely by launching execution against the properties in their hands under a judgment obtained against the donor." The above observations make it clear that in case a plaintiff has to execute a decree against the universal donee, he has to be necessarily impleaded as a party to the suit. Further more that would give an opportunity for them to effectively defend their case if any, including to say that they are, in fact, not universal donees; the defendant had some other properties, which might be known to them, being family members. 12. In this case, the circumstances - the settlement deeds executed on 6-10-2007; O.S.No. 98 of 2007 (CRP.No. 4205 of 2008) filed on 16—08--2007 and O.S.No. 97 of 2007 (CRP.No. 4207 of 2008) filed on 7—08--2007 are highly relevant. 13. In the result both the civil revision petitions are allowed. The order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District, in I.A.No. 289 and 290 of 2007 are set aside. Consequently both - I.A.No. 289 and 290 of 2007 on his file stand allowed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. August 19, 2009. *BVS [1] AIR 1978 AP 173 [2] AIR 1952 Trav. Co. 23.