THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2558 OF 2010 AND 2564 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order, dated 07.06.2010, in I.A.Nos.66 of 2010 and 238 of 2010 respectively in O.S.No.8 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, whereunder and whereby, the petitions, filed under Order I Rules 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, to implead the petitioners herein/proposed parties as defendants in the Original Suit, were dismissed on the ground that the petitioners, who purchased part of the plaint schedule property during the pendency of the suit, have no right to implead them as necessary and proper parties to the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners/proposed parties want to come on record as they are the bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration of part of the plaint schedule property during the pendency of the suit; that to safeguard their interest and to establish their right title and interest, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit; that in their absence, effective adjudication could not be made and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned orders. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the predecessors-in-interest of the implead petitioners are not added as parties to the suit; that in such circumstances, they cannot be brought on record; that if the petitioners have got right title and interest in the plaint schedule property, the same has to be established independently by filing separate suit, and therefore, the petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 4. If the petitioners are to be added as parties to suit, the issue to be decided in the suit is whether the third party predecessors-in-interest have got right, title and interest over the property. In other words, it must be shown that the third party predecessors-in-interest of petitioners have some semblance of right over the property in dispute. 5. Shareefa Bee is the owner of the plaint schedule lands bearing Survey Nos.434, 438, 481 and 462 admeasuring Ac.2-20 guntas, Ac.2-18 guntas, Ac.3-10 guntas, Ac.0-35 guntas respectively, situated at Metpalli Village and Mandal, which is the plaint schedule property, who gifted the same to respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs. The main suit is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs, who are the daughter-in-law and grand children of Shareefa Bee, against respondent Nos.4 to 6/defendants for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. It seems that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners/proposed parties said to have purchased Ac.0-20 guntas in Survey No.434, which form part of the plaint schedule property, from the predecessors-in-title. Therefore, the petitioners want to come on record, so as to safeguard their interest, as they are bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration of part of the plaint schedule property. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. Gorakhpur[1], wherein it is held thus: “Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. enables the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the code.” The above decision makes it clear that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the proposed parties, who have semblance of right, can be brought on record so as to effectively and completely adjudicate the dispute involved in the suit. 7. No doubt, the petitioners have got some semblance of right in part of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas, but, at the same time, they cannot be said to be necessary and proper parties to the suit for the simple reason that the issue involved in the suit is whether respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property. Whether the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration of part of the plaint schedule property or not, is not the question to be decided in the suit. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Pannala Renuka v. Kavali (Rajumouni) Venkataiah[2], wherein it is held thus: “Thus even in a case falling under the scope of Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC, the test would be whether alienee pendente lite has enforceable legal right. Can it be such a person, who purchased the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit in gross violation of the principle in Section 52 of TP Act has an enforceable legal right? The answer should be in the negative, for the simple reason that a person, who violates the law and acquired the right, can never be treated as a holder of legally enforceable right. That is the reason why the Courts have held that though the purchaser lis pendens is bound by the decree passed against his vendor and he cannot as of right be impleaded in the suit. In this case, as noticed by the trial Court the third defendant (Respondent No.7 herein) sold the land admeasuring Acs.7.00 in Survey No.248 to M/s. Bapi Raju, Venkata Subbamma and Vijayalakshmi, who in turn sold the same to the petitioners under registered sale deed dated 16-02-2004. The petitioners, therefore, have to sail or sink with the third defendant and they cannot have right independent of the right of the third defendant, nor the petitioners can be said to have any legally enforceable right as against plaintiff. The impugned order of the trial Court, therefore, must be held correct and is not vitiated by any error warranting interference.” In the above case, a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon ((2005) 11 SCC 403) was referred to, wherein it is held thus: “…..The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor-in-interest is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.” In view of the above decision, it is clear that if the predecessor-in- interest is made party then only the proposed parties can come on record and they are entitled to be heard. Admittedly, predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners herein are not made as parties to the suit. 9. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a collusion suit is filed in order to defeat the rights of the proposed parties, namely, the present petitioners, at the same time, the fact remains that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners are not parties to the suit. The petitioners have no independent right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property, because they purchased the part of the plaint schedule property from their predecessors-in-interest. Whether the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners have got a right, title and interest in the plaint schedule property or not, cannot be decided in the present suit, because they are not parties to the suit. In such circumstances, the impleadment of the present petitioners cannot be said to be proper and necessary, in view of the fact that the issues involved in the suit are entirely different from the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the applications. The impugned orders need no interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 22, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2558 OF 2010 AND 2564 OF 2010 C.R.P.No.2558 of 2010: Between: Maddikunta Uday Kumar and another .....PETITIONERS AND Razia Sulthana and others ....RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.2564 of 2010: Between: Thirukovela Ramanujam .....PETITIONER AND Razia Sulthana and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2558 OF 2010 AND 2564 OF 2010 October 22, 2010 [1] AIR 1999 SC 976 [2] 2006 (6) ALD 761