IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.8044 of 2010 Between: Hemalatha Kakani and another … Appellants And Mohd. Feroze and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.8044 of 2010 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed L.G.C.No.13 of 2009, in which they filed I.A.No.944 of 2009 to implead the petitioners and their vendor as respondent Nos.14 to 16 stating that respondent No.14, vendor of the petitioners herein, executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.15/petitioner No.1-Hemalatha Kakani, who in turn executed a gift deed in favour of respondent No.16/petitioner No.2- Mrs.Kusum Bai Kakani with regard to the property bearing H.No.8-2- 686/A/3, which belongs to petitioner No.1. The house number was allotted to the original owner Syed Mohsin Moinuddin and an assessment order was passed in his favour i.e., the vendor of respondent Nos.1 to 3, who purchased the property, as such the question of H.No.8-2-686/A/2 belonging to the petitioners does not arise. Taking advantage of the said documents, the proposed respondents in the I.A., colluded with respondent Nos.1 to 13 in the I.A. in grabbing the application schedule property. When the I.A. is taken up for hearing, a memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the said I.A., giving up claim against respondent No.14, whereas the petitioners herein filed a delayed counter opposing the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 13 admitting that respondent No.14 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.15 with regard to the application schedule premises bearing H.No.8-2-686/A/3, but pleaded that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present proceedings and they are nowhere concerned with the property forming part of survey No.129/40/2, which is in possession of the respondents and the property claimed by the petitioners is far away from the property, which is in possession of the respondents. Apart from the same, the property was mutated in their name way back in the year 1982, whereas similar number is being obtained by the petitioners and their vendors, but they failed to mention the year of their assessment. Since the petitioners herein are making their independent claim to the subject matter of the property, which is purchased by respondent No.15 from respondent No.14, for effective adjudication of the issues involved, the trial court ordered the I.A. impleading the petitioners as party-respondents to the above L.G.C. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when the petitioners are in possession of different property and from 1982 their father was in possession, against whom the petitioners have not pressed their claim, they are not proper and necessary parties to the petition. Whether the petitioners claiming their independent right and title over the property, is not the subject matter of the property in dispute in the L.G.C., and it is a matter that requires to be decided on the evidence adduced by the parties. It is always open for the applicants before the L.G.C., to choose the respondents against whom they are claiming relief. Merely because respondent Nos.1 to 3/applicants had given up their claim against respondent No.14, that does not bar them to claim the relief against the petitioners, if they are found to be in possession of the property and on establishing that they have grabbed the property under the sale deed. No infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the trial Court, in ordering the impleadment petition, warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th April 2010 lmv