1HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 2879 of 2009 O R D E R This revision is directed against the order dated 30.3.2009 passed in IA No. 836 of 2006 in OS No. 1203 of 2005 on the file of the XII Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner’s case in brief is as follows: The petitioner filed the above suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 9.3.2005. According to him, he was allotted part of the house consisting of G+1 in his family partition that took place between himself and his other brothers. His grand mother lived in the ground floor till her death. It is also his case that his brothers had sold away their respective shares. Thereafter some dispute arose between the petitioner and his brother - Chandrakanth Goud in respect of some other property. It is alleged that in collusion with the defendant, Smt. Anugula Uma Rani, his brother G.Chandrakanth Goud executed the sale deed and therefore, the revision petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, he had clearly mentioned that due to inadvertent and lack of knowledge he could not join his brother as defendant in the suit and that he is the necessary party to the suit proceedings. The 1st respondent herein filed a counter contending inter alia that the petitioner was never in possession of the property and that she purchased the property from the original owner and that the claim of the petitioner is bared by limitation. The proposed defendant also filed a counter contending that he is not a necessary party and that the property was his self-acquired property and that he sold the same to the 1st respondent herein. The lower court passed cryptic order which reads as follows: “ Though the relief is claimed as cancellation of a sale deed, from the averments of the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff is seeking declaration of his title to the property. Since he is not the party to sale deed, he cannot ask for cancellation of the said document. The contesting defendant is resisting the suit claim, contending that his vendor has got good title. Hence, the proposed party is neither necessary party nor proper party to the suit. Petition is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.” 3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the impugned order but however, submitted that a direction may be given to the lower court to dispose of the suit as early as possible. As seen from the facts of the case, it is clear that the 1st respondent is claiming her title through the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is claiming that suit schedule property as his self-acquired property. Therefore, it is clear that the proposed party is a necessary party. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and consequently, IA No. 834 of 2006 stands allowed. However, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within nine (9) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 4. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 04-02-2011. Mjl/*1