IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 3 8 1 OF 2006. Between: Smt.Sunita Bai, w/o Late Ramanuj Chowdary aged about 38 years, occupation Household, R/o. 5-9-30/1/4/6/A, 5-9-30/1/4/6-B. Palace colony, Basheer baugh, Hyderabad. & 3-Ors. … Revision Petitioners V/s. Dwaraka Pershad Chowdary, s/o Late Ranganath Chowdary, aged about 42 years, Occupation Business, r/o. H.No. 14-11-304/3, Ground and Upper Floors, Mangalghat, Hyderabad & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioners : Sri L. Ravichander Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 3 8 1 OF 2006. O R D E R : Aggrieved by the order dated 08-2-2006 passed in IA.No. 541 of 2005 in OS.No. 111 of 2003 by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed under Order-1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants 3 to 6 seeking to implead Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 as defendants 7 to 12 in the main suit, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. The case of the petitioners herein is that the property 13-1-9 and 13-1-9/1 admeasuring 3437 sq.yards situated at Seetarampet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad was purchased in court auction in OS.No.105 of 1968 who were the paternal grand mother of late Ramanuja Chowdry and the third defendant is the Class-1 heir of Smt. Manke Radha Bai and she is entitled for share in the property and that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has sold away the said property to the various persons without her knowledge and consent without giving any share to her and her children that is the branch of late Ramanuja Chowdry and they are legally entitled to the share as per law and therefore the property may be added as “G” schedule and the respondents 4 to 9 being the purchasers are proper and necessary parties to the suit. 3. On the other hand, the first respondent filed a counter stating that the proposed parties are not proper and necessary parties to the suit and the present application is filed only with an intention to protract the litigation that too after completing the major portion of the cross-examination of PW.1 and that the property bearing No.13-1-9 and 9/1 admeasuring 3437 sq.yards is not part of suit schedule and admittedly the said property belongs to the grand mother of the first respondent, respondents 2 and 3 and that they have become owner of the said property by virtue of will executed by Smt. Radha Bai and later on the defendants 1 and 2 have relinquished the above property in favour of plaintiff under three release deeds and thereby he became exclusive owner of the said property and therefore they cannot seek any share and that the petitioners are only entitled for share in the property of Ranganath Chowdry and that the property bearing No. 13-1-9 and 9/1 is not available for partition or it is not a part of the suit schedule property and therefore it cannot be included as “G” schedule property in the suit and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs and that the proposed parties are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit. 4. Respondents 4 to 7 and 9 also filed a common counter denying the averments made in the application and these respondents averred that the petitioners are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit and that they have legally and bonafidely purchased the property under different registered sale deeds from the lawful owners and their presence is not required for determination of any of the dispute in the main suit. 5. On the basis of the above rival contentions, the learned trial Judge framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioners (Defendants 3 to 6) are entitled for any Order to implead the respondents 4 to 9 as defendants 7 to 12 in the suit ? “ 6. On appreciation of facts and circumstances, the learned trial Judge rejected the request of the petitioners to implead them in the main suit. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 8. Sri L. Ravichander, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners strenuously contended that the trial court erred to consider that the suit filed for partition of the joint family properties and that the first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the main suit had suppressed before the court in mentioning certain facts and properties belonging to his father-in-law and his father. Secondly, the properties that are to be added as “G” schedule properties in the suit were the property belonging to the joint family and therefore, it is necessary to add the property in a suit for partition. Thirdly, the application filed to add the property purchased by Smt. Manke Radha Bai, wife of Shri Mohan Lal was the paternal grand mother of the first petitioner’s deceased husand and the first petitioner being the class-I heir is also entitled to the share of the said property, and therefore, the trial court dismissing the application is erroneous on the face of record. Fourthly, the respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff in the suit had sold away the said property to various persons without the knowledge and consent of the other members and legal heirs of Manke Radha Bai, and therefore, the sale of the property is illegal, as the other legal heirs of joint family have not given their consent and have not put their signature in the sale deeds. He further submitted that the trial court failed to consider that the properties that are being added as “G” schedule in the suit by way of filing interim application is not to protract the litigation but only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court erred in contending that the property held by Late Radha Bai cannot be treated, as the joint family property and therefore, it cannot be clubbed with the dispute on hand is erroneous, as the property was sold away by the respondent No.1 without the knowledge of the other family members and that too after the death of Radha Bai. The first respondent who is the plaintiff had admitted to the fact that the property had been sold away by him and therefore, the court below ought to have directed him to furnish the details of the sale deeds and the date of their execution. The learned counsel has also taken this court through the various averments and contended that the court below erred in contending that the property of female Hindu cannot be treated as the joint family property and therefore, the question of including that property in the schedule as “G” schedule does not sustain in view of the law that the property of female Hindu cannot be treated as joint family property, if the female is alive and the property is possessed by her. But in this case, the property was purchased by late Manke Radha Bai in a court auction and after the death of Manke Radha Bai, the property became joint family property. Further the court below erred in dismissing the application filed to include the property in the schedule as “G” schedule in the plaint taking into account that the respondents 2 and 3 have already executed a relinquishment deed and therefore, the court erred in overlooking the fact that the petitioners are part of the joint family property and that they had not given any relinquishment deed regarding that property. 9. Heard Sri L.Ravichander, the learned counsel representing the Revision Petitioners and perused the records as well. 10. It is an admitted fact that the said property was sold by the first respondent-plaintiff in favour of the proposed parties, respondents 4 to 9 under registered sale deeds. But neither the petitioners nor the respondents have furnished the details of the sale deeds and date of its execution. This aspect is silent on the part of either of the parties. Moreover, when the suit filed with regard to the properties of late Ranganath Chowdry, the property held by late Radha bai cannot be treated as the joint family property and thus it cannot be clubbed with the dispute on hand. But the duty cast upon the petitioners to furnish the date of execution of sale deeds so as to enable the court to consider whether the relief sought is within the period of limitation or not. The learned trial Judge has observed in the order that the petition-affidavit is silent to the extent when the property was sold and when the possession was delivered to the purchasers; i.e., the proposed parties R4 to R9. The learned trial Judge further observed that when the property of a female Hindu cannot be treated as the joint family property, the question of including that property in the schedule as “G” schedule do not sustain and impleading the proposed parties to the suit do not arise and that dispute has to be decided separately, if all the petitioners have got any interest to proceed against that property and that they have got any right over the same. 11. On careful consideration of the entire material placed on record and also the observations made by the learned trial Judge, more so the first respondent-plaintiff i.e., the defendants 1 and 2 have already executed a relinquishment deed in his favour. Therefore, the learned trial Judge held that the request of the petitioners cannot be considered and the proposed parties are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit for determination of any of the disputes and that property cannot be included as “G” schedule to the plaint. 12. Under the above circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The learned trial Judge gave cogent reasons for his conclusion and the application is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose off the main suit on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not already disposed off. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 22-03-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 3 8 1 OF 2006 Circulation Entry No. 9 5 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L Date: 22-03-2010