THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5236 of 2009 DATED: 24.10.2011 Between: Shakir Masood Ali, Hyderabad. …Petitioners And Mettu Baga Reddy and 37 others …Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5236 of 2009 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.2009 in I.A.No.5021 of 2008 in O.S.No.195 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents 1 to 33 herein (plaintiffs) filed O.S.No.195 of 2005 against the respondents 34 to 38 (defendants) seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 in O.S.No.1331 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge (East & North), R.R. District is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 to the extent of the suit schedule lands and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant No.4 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property. They also sought partition the suit schedule property into 100 shares and allot the shares specified therein to the plaintiffs. While the suit was coming up for cross-examination of D.W.2, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.5021 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. to implead him as defendant No.6 to the suit. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 15.10.2009 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the proposed party/revision petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As noticed above, the main suit is filed for a declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1331 of 2004 dated 22.11.2004 is null and void. The material available on record shows that one Mohd. Amjad Ali, S/o. Mohd. Hussain was the pattadar of the suit schedule property. One Mettu Bagi Reddy was the protected tenant in whose favour the Protected Tenant Certificate was issued under Section 35 and 37 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Subsequently, certificate of ownership under Section 38-E of the Act was issued to his sons in respect of land in Sy.Nos.239 & 241. They continued in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of not only the land in Sy.Nos.239 & 241 but also the land in Sy.Nos.186, 238, 242, 243 & 248 and thus perfected their title in respect of other land also by adverse possession. Their title was confirmed by the Land Reforms Tribunal by order dated 21.7.1977 in Case No.408/u/1975, on the basis of the declaration filed by the pattadar Mohd. Amjad Ali. After the demise of Bagi Reddy and his sons, the plaintiffs who claim to be their legal heirs, acquired title and possession of the suit schedule property. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant No.4, who was claiming title in respect of the suit schedule property on the basis of an unregistered sale deed, dated 12.3.1964 said to have been executed by defendant No.5 filed O.S.No.1331 of 2004 for declaration of title and obtained an ex parte decree by judgment dated 22.11.2004. According to the plaintiffs, the said decree dated 22.11.2004 in O.S.No.1331 of 2004 was a collusive decree and it was obtained by playing fraud on the Court. The proposed party/revision petitioner claims that one Mohd. Amjad Alid @ Meer Amjad Ali was the original pattadar of the suit schedule land. It is claimed that Mohd. Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali died issueless and that the revision petitioner acquired title to 75% share in the property of late Mohd. Amjad Ali by virtue of Hiba (oral gift) dated 01.02.1990. It is claimed that O.S.No.210 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, R.R. District filed for partition and separate possession of the said property is pending. It is also claimed that late Mohd. Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali during his life time filed declarations under the Land Reforms Act in which orders were passed in Case No.408/u/75, dated 21.7.1977. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs also referred to the very same order of the Land Reforms Tribunal in Case No.408/u/75, dated 21.7.1977, pursuant to the declaration said to have been filed by M. Bagi Reddy and that it was pleaded in the plaint that the original pattadar of the plaint schedule was Mohd. Amjad Ali, the revision petitioner made an attempt to co-relate the suit schedule properties and the property claimed by him through late Mohd. Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali. It is alleged by the revision petitioner that the defendant No.4 filed O.S.No.1331 of 2004 by playing fraud and misrepresenting the facts and that late Mohd. Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali never executed any document in favour of anybody else in respect of the property in question. It is also pleaded that making similar claims, one Sk. Khadim Hussain filed O.S.No.1058 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VIII-Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and obtained a compromise decree in respect of the estate of Late Mohd. Amjad Ali. Thus it is claimed that being the legal representative of late Mohd. Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali, the revision petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property and that the claim of both the plaintiffs and the defendants are not legally tenable and therefore his presence is of utmost importance to bring true facts to the notice of the Court. Thus it is claimed that the revision petitioner is entitled to get himself impleaded as defendant No.6. The Court below on appreciation of the material available on record held that the revision petitioner failed to prove that he had succeeded to the plaint schedule properties. In the absence of any acceptable document to show that he is the legal heir of the defendant No.5 and that he acquired title to the suit schedule properties, the Court below disbelieved the claim of the revision petitioner that he is the owner of the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, it was concluded that he was not a proper and necessary party to the suit. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I am unable to hold that the order under revision suffered from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court. As rightly held by the Court below, the revision petitioner had miserably failed to establish his title to the suit schedule property through the defendant No.5. It is relevant to note that the defendant No.5 is described as Nawab Meer Amjad Ali S/.o. Nawab Meer Afzal Ali and according to the plaintiffs he is very much alive. On the other hand, the revision petitioner claims title to the suit schedule property through one Mohd. Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali, who died in the year 1985. The specific case of the defendant No.4, who alone contested the implead petition is that the person through whom the revision petitioner is claiming title is entirely different from the defendant No.5. From the documents produced before the Court below, the revision petitioner could not contradict the plea of the defendant No.4. The law is well settled that before directing a party to be impleaded, the Court has to be satisfied that the presence of the proposed party is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all points involved in the suit. Since the revision petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case to show his interest or title in the suit schedule property, the Court below had rightly concluded that he was neither proper nor necessary party for adjudicating the issues involved in the suit. Having regard to the nature of the claim made by the revision petitioner, this Court is also of the opinion that the impleadment of the revision petitioner as a party to the suit will alter the scope and character of the suit itself. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under Revision warrants no interference by this Court on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 24.10.2011 KLP