THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.443 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.87 of 1990 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Proddatur against the respondents for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. He stated that the property was acquired by his father under a registered document, dated 31.10.1957. In the family partition effected in the year 1980, it has fallen to his share and he obtained a sale deed, dated 07.01.1986 from the original owner. Respondents 1 to 5 opposed the suit. According to them, the property was held by one Sri Narala Pulla Reddy and he, in turn, had endowed it to a Temple in Viswanathapuram Village. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 10.12.1992. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 1 to 5 filed A.S.No.30 of 1996 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court, through judgment, dated 15.11.2000. It was observed that there is a serious dispute as to the exact owner. Reference was made to the deposition of D.W.3. The appellant challenges the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court. Heard Sri C.Sadasiva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for first respondent. The appellant obtained a sale deed, Ex.A1, from one Sri Avula Nagi Reddy S/o.Muni Reddy. None of respondents 1 to 5 claimed any independent title. They have only opposed the claim of the appellant. The record discloses that on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, D.W.3 by name Avula Venkata Subba Reddy was examined. According to this witness, his father by name Avula Nagi Reddy S/o. Chinna Malla Reddy is the owner of the suit schedule property and after death of his father, himself and various others are in possession of different extents of land. The lower appellate Court felt that it is necessary to decide as to whether Avula Nagi Reddy S/o. Muni Reddy, the vendor of the appellant or Avula Nagi Reddy S/o. Chinna Malla Reddy, the father of D.W.3 was the actual owner of the property. Had it been a suit for injunction simplicitor, the appellant would not have been under obligation to seek remedy vis-à-vis others except those that are impleaded as parties to the suit. In a suit for declaration, whenever a rival claim is made by the person, who is not a party, the plaintiff would be under obligation to implead him or those claiming through him, so that the relief of declaration would be perfect and valid. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court. On the other hand, the trial and adjudication, as directed by the lower appellate Court, would put an end to the controversy. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.09.2009 kdl