IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3161 of 2009 Between : Smt. Prema Ravindranath and others ….. PETITIONERS a n d M/s.Nadella Estates Limited rep. by its Managing Director Sri N. Vijaya Bhaskar Chowdary and others ….. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders in I.A.No.429 of 2008 in O.S.No.49 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum - V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 21-01-2009. 2. The petition before the trial Court was filed by 298 revision petitioners to be impleaded as defendants in the suit through 3 General Power of Attorney holders claiming that the petitioners purchased their respective plots of land including in S.No.183 of Kollur village. The first respondent filed the suit claiming Ac.10-22 gts., in Sy.No183 and is trying to obtain a collusive decree against the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners claim that they formed themselves into an association called as Laxmipuram Plots Welfare Association to protect the interest of the purchasers of the plots in Sy.Nos.172, 174, 175, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 and 186 to 190 of Kollur village. If they are not impleaded, they will suffer irreparable loss. 3. The first respondent resisted the claim contending that the General Power of Attorneys do not empower the attorney holders to get impleaded in the suit on behalf of the petitioners. The first respondent also contended that in the absence of the respective sale deeds before the Court and the affidavit not disclosing any nexus between the petitioners and the disputes in the main suit for declaration as against the defendants to the suit, the petitioners cannot be impleaded. The first respondent also contended that S.No.183 is agricultural land and there is no lay out covering the said survey number converting it into plots and hence, he desired that the petition be dismissed as the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties. 4. The respondents 2 and 3 also resisted the petition on the same grounds pleading in addition that the petitioners never purchased any plots in the suit survey number. The sale deeds relied on by the petitioners do not cover S.No.183. 5. On such contentions, the trial Court rendered the impugned order and noted therein that the suit is for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction against the defendants therein in respect of Ac.10-22 gts., in S.No.183 of Kollur village. The trial Court noted that in so far as petitioners 1 to 274 are concerned, S.No.183 did not find place in their sale deeds. It is only in the sale deeds relating to the petitioners 275 to 298 that S.No.183 was specifically mentioned. The trial Court observed that the location of the plots vis-à-vis the suit land was not clear from the claims of the petitioners and therefore, they cannot be considered as proper and necessary parties. The petitioners were considered to be un- affected by the subject matter of the suit and any multiplicity of proceedings by not impleading them was not foreseen. The trial Court therefore, concluded that the petitioners are no way concerned with the reliefs claimed between the parties to the suit and consequently dismissed the petition with costs. 6. The revision petitioners challenged the said order contending that the trial Court ought to have seen that the land of Ac.10-22 gts., in S.No.183 covered by the suit overlaps the various plots purchased by the petitioners in the same survey number. The trial Court ignored the clear mention in the sale deeds about S.No.183 and as rights of the petitioners will be affected by any determination in the suit, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. 7. The revision petitioners filed a further affidavit giving the particulars of the plots, their extent, their location in specified survey numbers, the dates of the sale deeds and the numbers of the documents. The petitioners stated that the sale deeds were obtained from M. Rajamallaiah and others, the original owners and they further claimed that the sales in their favour were much prior to 1987 leaving no land to the first respondent or anybody else in S.No.183. They claimed that about 150 acres of land in different survey numbers were sold after obtaining lay out and the plots numbering about 1500 were sold to various persons including the petitioners. They claimed that the same vendors of the first respondent or their predecessors were never in possession. As the first respondent has no title or possession, the presence of the petitioners becomes necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the suit. 8. Sri D. Sreenivas Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel and Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri Ravi Shankar Jandyala, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 are heard. 9. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners have to be impleaded as defendants in the suit as proper or necessary parties. 10. Sri Sreenivasa Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners referred to Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Company regd. Partnership firm[1], wherein the Apex Court opined that it can never be said as an absolute proposition that a third party can never be impleaded in a suit for specific performance and if the said third party can show a fair semblance of title or interest, he can certainly file an application for impleadment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 11. Learned counsel also referred to Babulal Khandelwal and others v. Balkishan D. Sanghvi and others[2], wherein the Apex Court considered a purchaser of property from the deceased during his lifetime to be a necessary party for an administration suit. The learned counsel also placed reliance on V.J. Thomas v. Pathrose Abraham and others[3], wherein the Apex Court was considering a suit for declaration of title and possession of property with a consequential retraint order and it was laid down that the impleadment of users of the pathway in question was proper. The Apex Court observed that issuance of a general notice to all the users of the pathway in this regard in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was appropriate. The decisions relied on thus suggest that if an ex facie interest in the subject matter of the suit is probablised by the third party seeking to come on record, there will be nothing improper or illegal in permitting the said party to come on record as an appropriate party, if not as a necessary party. 12. Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, with reference to State of Bihar and others v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and others[4], contended that any judgment that may be ultimately rendered in the suit will not be a judgment in rem but only a judgment inter partes amounting to a judgment in personam. On the strength of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in this regard, the learned counsel contended that there will be absolutely no prejudice to the petitioners, even if they are not impleaded in the suit. 13. The first respondent is basing his claim in the suit for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction on the registered sale deed said to have been obtained by him on 28-10- 2002 in respect of the suit schedule property. The prayer in the suit is to declare the first respondent as the absolute owner and possessor. 14. Sri V. Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel and Sri.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent represented that in so far as the relief of declaring the first respondent to be the possessor of the suit property is concerned, they will take steps before the trial Court to have such relief deleted. 15. Still the declaration of title and consequential injunction sought for in respect of the suit property against the defendants to the suit is claimed by the petitioners to be covering and overlapping the respective plots purchased by them under the registered sale deeds from persons from whom only the first respondent is claiming his title, with the registered sale deed in favour of the first respondent being much later in point of time to the registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. 16. Though it is true that the petitioners 275 to 298 alone have a reference to S.No.183, which is the subject matter of the suit, in their respective sale deeds and not the other petitioners, at least in so far as the said petitioners 275 to 298 are concerned, they cannot be straight away considered to be having no prosecutable interest in the suit in respect of the subject matter of the suit. While petitioners 1 to 274, whose sale deeds were noticed by the trial Court to be not referring to S.No.183 at all, do not appear to have any cause even remotely to insist on being brought on record in the suit, the petitioners 275 to 298 cannot be considered similarly. Even if there is no approved lay out shown to be in existence in respect of S.No.183 and even if S.No.183 is an agricultural land not appearing to have been converted into use for any other purpose as per the prescribed procedure by any competent authority, these questions as to whether the agricultural land could have been converted into plots and sold separately and individually to the petitioners and whether the said plots referred to in the sale deeds of petitioners 275 to 298 to be located also in S.No.183 and the suit property of Ac.10-22 gts., in Sy.No.183 overlapped each other or not are questions which have to be either directly or incidentally gone into in the suit on the rival contentions of the parties and decided on merits in accordance with law on the evidence to be placed before the trial Court. The petitioners 275 to 298, who are claiming their respective plots under registered sale deeds emanating much earlier in point of time to the sale deed relied on by the first respondent are persons with fair semblance of title and interest in their respective plots in S.No.183 and as observed by the Apex Court in Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Company regd. Partnership firm supra they need not be asked to wait till a decree to the first respondent in the present suit and then take recourse to appropriate proceedings to get over such decree; As effective and comprehensive adjudication of all the questions in controversy between the competing parties is the object behind Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and avoidance of complication and multiplicity of proceedings is an appropriate reason for the Court to act under the said provision, petitioners 275 to 298 ought to have been permitted by the trial Court to implead themselves as defendants. The impugned order has to be therefore, reversed to the extent of the said petitioners, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. The revision has to be hence partly allowed. 17. Accordingly, the order dated 21-01-2009 in I.A.No.429 of 2008 in O.S.No.49 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum - V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, is set aside in so far as the concerned petitioners 275 to 298 and the said petition is allowed in respect of the said petitioners 275 to 298, who shall be impleaded as defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2005. 18. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J August 26, 2010 Pn HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3161 of 2009 August 26, 2010 [1] AIR 2007 Supreme Court 3166 [2] AIR 2009 Supreme Court 67 [3] AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1503 [4] AIR 1983 Supreme Court 684