THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4796 of 2008 Date: 06.12.2010 Between: Parlapalli Ananda Reddy … Petitioner And Madduluru Suneetha and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4796 of 2008 ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the order, dated 1.9.2008, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, in I.A.No.562 of 2008 in O.S.No.1223 of 2004, dismissing the petition filed by him under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. refusing to add the petitioner in the place of the deceased-3rd defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property on the ground that he purchased the same under registered sale deed, dated 31.10.2002, for valuable consideration from Ayyagari Rama Rao and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The 3rd defendant filed written statement in the lower Court and it was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, contending inter alia that the present Sy.No.56 is correlated to old Sy.No.50 and that old Sy.No.50 was sub-divided and that the disputed land belonging to her predecessor’s predecessor Sarvepalli Subbaramaiah and that the said property devolved on her and it is her Sthri Dhana property. She specifically pleaded in her written statement that an extent of 100 Ankanams was alienated to her by defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Pasupu Kumkuma and that she sold away the same to Parlapalli Ananda Reddy (the petitioner herein) under registered sale agreement for valuable consideration. Now, the petitioner has come out with this petition before the lower Court contending that he purchased the said 100 Ankanams of site from the 3rd defendant under registered sale deed, dated 16.10.2004. Previously, when the petitioner attempted to come on record by filing a petition under Order I Rule 1 C.P.C., the lower Court did not permit him to come on record. As the matter now stands, the 3rd defendant died and so the petitioner renewed his attempt to come on record in the place of the deceased-3rd defendant as her legal representative, apart from as the person interested in subject matter of the suit. No doubt, when the 3rd defendant was alive, the petitioner may not be impleaded, because the sale deed in his favour is subsequent to filing of the suit on 13.8.2004. The sale by the 3rd defendant in favour of the petitioner was subject to the doctrine of lis pendence. It is for the 3rd defendant to fight out the pending litigation by the date of sale in favour of the petitioner and to fulfil warranty of title, which she incorporated in the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Now, the 3rd defendant is no more. Therefore, in order to substantiate his interest, the petitioner wants to come on record in the place of the 3rd defendant and not independently. Section 2(11) of C.P.C. defines ‘legal representative’ as follows: “(11) “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;” As per the above definition, the term ‘legal representative’ includes even an intermeddler. When the plaintiff does not want to implead any legal representatives of the 3rd defendant in the suit and intends to abandon his claim as against the 3rd defendant, the petitioner, who is purchaser of property from the 3rd defendant, intends to come on record in order to safe-guard the property purchased by him from the 3rd defendant under a sale deed, dated 16.10.2004. It is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that the property sold by the 3rd defendant and purchased by the plaintiff is different from subject matter of the suit and that there is discrepancy between the schedule contained in the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the plaint schedule and that, therefore, he cannot be impleaded as party- defendant to the suit. When this Court questioned the 1st respondent’s counsel whether the 1st respondent/plaintiff does not dispute title of the petitioner for the property which he purchased from the 3rd defendant under registered sale deed, dated 16.10.2004, there is no answer for the said question. Without impleading the petitioner in the place of the 3rd defendant, the 1st respondent/plaintiff cannot obtain a decree as against the property, which the petitioner purchased from the deceased-3rd defendant under registered sale deed, dated 16.10.2004. When there is dispute regarding survey numbers and dispute regarding the property, then it is all the more necessary that all the persons, who are interested in the property, should be on record and particularly the petitioner, who purchased the disputed property from the deceased-3rd defendant. In that view of the matter, the petitioner becomes legal representative of the 3rd defendant as transferee of the property in which the deceased-3rd defendant has got rights. The lower Court erred in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. In the result, the revision petition is allowed without costs, directing the lower Court to implead the petitioner as 4th defendant in the suit. It is, however, made clear that since the petitioner is being impleaded as legal representative in the place of the deceased- 3rd defendant, he cannot take any independent plea apart from the plea which the 3rd defendant has taken in her written statement and that he cannot file a separate written statement, but has to proceed with the suit from the stage as the suit stood by the date of death of the 3rd defendant. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 06.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4796 of 2008 06.12.2010 (Msr)