The High Court · 2025

4. Firdous_Fatima, Wo. M.D. Fazil Mohiuddin, D/o. Late Akthari Begum, Age. 59 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 3-5-1/1/8, Madina Colony. Bliainsa,- Mandal. Bhainsa, Dist. Nirmal.

5. Farkhunda Fathima, Wo. Aijaz Ahmed, D/o. Late Akthari Begum, Age. 48 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-4-327, Teer Galli, Bodhah, Dist. Nizamabad 503001.

6. Zakeer Ahmed Siddiqui, S/o. Kadir Haimad Siddiqui, Age. 45 years, Occ. Qysin-e..ss, R/9. H.llo-.!--1-12111, Ahmed Pura Colony, Near Bodhan Bus Stop Dist. Nizamabad 503001. 7 lvajld Ahm_ed Slddique, S/o QuadirHaimad Siddiqui, Age. 44 years, Occ.- Pusiness, R/o H. No.- 10-3351216, Staya Raghavendra Nagar,-Venkateshwara Nagar, Nizamabad ... Respo n dents/Plai ntiffs lA NO: l CtF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the afficlavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to O.S 102 of 2022 on the file of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad pending the Civil Revision petition Hyderabac. Counsel fcrr the Petitioners :SRl SOURABH AGARWAL counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : sRt soMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY The Court rnade the following: ORDER (-] THEHON0URABLESMT.JUSTICERENUKAYARA RE ORDER: Heard Sri Sourabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7. Perused the entire record'

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the I Additional Junior civil Judge, Adilabad ('trial court'), in t'A'No'72 of 2023 in O.S.No.l02 of 2022,wherein a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, to implead the revision petitioners herein as defendant Nos' 4 and 5 in the main suit has been dismissed'

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos'4 to 7 herein filed suit for partition and separate possession against respondent Nos' 1 to 3 herein with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of agricultural land in Sy.No.73l11 corresponding to new Sy-No'/3llll3 admeasuring Ac.4-00 guntas situated at Anukunta Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. The suit is filed for partition between plaintiffs and defendants/ family members i.e., legal heirs of Late Akthari Begum. Since suit is for partition and separate possession between the legal heirs of the Akthari Begum, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the revision i. i: I I , -' t\ I i It ! RY,J cRP 2202 2024 petitioners seeking impleadment on the premise that the revision petitioners/proposed ilarties, who are seeking rights under agreement of sale, ouglrt to have filed suit for specific performance or for recovery of advance sale consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

4. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the revision petitioners have rights under agreement of sale dated 20.06.2019 which is executed by respondent No.l, who is defendant No.l in the same suit and therefore, the trial Couri arrived at erroneous conclusion by dismissing the I.A. under revision. It is the casi: of the revision petitioners that they have a vested right in the property and therefore, they ought to have been impleaded. Further, tre revision petitioners pleaded that there is an erroneous conclusion that only legal heirs of the intestate property are necessary and proper parties.

5. During the argurnents, learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued tha: revision petitioners have entered into agreement of sale and have paid l;ubstantial part of the sale consideration to respondent No.1 as revenue rec'ords show ownership of the suit schedule property in the name of respondt:nt No.l only. Respondent No.r is having pattedar passbook and title deed in his favour and therefore, the revision petitioners herein 2 (-l RY,J cPlP 2202 2024 have believed the version of respondent No.l that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and entered into the agreement of sale. With an intention to defeat the rights of the revision petitioners, the suit for partition was filed and therefore, to place the true facts before the Court, the revision petitioners are proper parties, as such prayed that the Civil Revision Petition be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 argued that in a suit for partition and separate possession third parties cannot be impleaded to increase the scope of the suit. Further, it is pleaded that the presence of the proposed parties is not required to determine /ls between the original plaintiffs and defendants as such contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.

7. A perusal of the ptaint in O.S.No.l02 of 2022 shows that there is dispute between the siblings about partition of suit schedule property. The suit is filed on the premise that late Akthari Begum was owner of the suit schedule property and she passed away on 08.02.2016 intestate and after her death respondent Nos. t and 2 cultivated the suit schedule property without any partition. Though, there was demand for partition by respondent Nos.4 to 7, respondent Nos.1 and 2 postponed the issue on one pretext or the other. Finally, on 27.03.2022 it is learnt that out of total .on 3 t/ I I i .t I i I i i i : T I I I RY,J cRP 2202 2024 Ac.4-00 1;untas of land, respondent No.l got Ac.3-20 guntas of land mutated into his name and Ac.0.20 guntas of land was mutated in the name of responrlent No.2. 'the pattedar passbooks were issued in their favour and they refused to partition the suit schedule property leading to filing of the main suit. To sum up, the /rs is between respondent Nos.1 to 3 on one hand and respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the other hand and the revision petitioners are the parties who wanted to be impleaded.

8. The case of the revision petitioners is that late Akthari Begum is owner of the suit schedule property and she died on 08.02.2016 and thereafter, there was a family settlement whereby Ac.3-20 guntas was allotted to respondent No.l and Ac.0-20 guntas to respondent No.2 and according[rr, mutation was effected. On the basis of the pattedar passbooks and title de;eds issued, respondent No.1 entered into agreement of sale on

20.06.2019 on payment of Rs.70,0001- on 11.06.2019 by NEFT transfer to respondent No.5 and payment of Rs.6,00,000/- on 20.06.2019 in cash. Further, Rs.8,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by July, 2019 and on

01.07.2019 an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to respondent No.l for obtaining r1o objection certificate from concerned authorities. On

26.07.2019, the revision petitioners paid further amount of Rs.50,000/- upon which respondent No.l executed acknowledgment cum receipt for 4 RY,J cRP 2202 2024 Rs.7,20,000/-. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was also paid by the revision petitioners and the balance amount of Rs.5,70,000/- was agreed to be paid on the date of registration of sale deed. Thereafter, respondent No.l refusecl to execute sale deed on one pretext or the other. g. The version of the revision petitioners shows that they are seeking relief against respondent No.l having entered into agreement of sale. Currently, there is dispute with respect to ownership and possession of respondent No.l over the entire extent of property to the exclusion of \ \ respondent Nos.4 to 7. Until the rights are decided in the partition suit, the \ revision petitioners will not have any claim over the suit schedule property- The revision petitioners can claim rights in separate suit.. The nature of the suit for partition would be changed substantially, in case the revision petitioners herein are permitted to be impleaded as parties. In case, respondent No.l succeeds in defending the suit, the revision petitioners may have an opportunity to claim total extent of the suit schedule property. In case respondent No.1 fails in defending the suit, the revision petitioners may not have a cause of action to claim right over the total extent of.suit schedule property. Since the presence of the revision petitioners is not required in a suit for partition, the revision petitioners as held by the learned trial Court have to fi[e suit for specific performance or suit for / 5 RY,J cRP 2202 2024 recovery of money against respondent No.l. As such, there are no merits in the present civil revision petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed

10. [n the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order daterl 02.04.2024 in I.A.Na.72 of 2023 in O.S.No.l02 of 2022 on the file of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applicatiorLs, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, , 1. 2. 3. 4. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad One CC to SRI SOURABH AGARWAL Advocate tOpUCI One 3C to SRI SOMA RAVI KTRAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl Two C;D Copies ADK/PSL \ \ 5 \ HIGH COURT DATED i0711012025 I {t{E ? 2 JAil 2026 ( * ORDETT CRP.Nrt.2202 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE C WITHOIJT COSTS th'