The High Court · 2025

lO.Ashok Singh, S/o. Krshan Singh, aged 63 years. R/o Firrr. -60/30/1 1/136, Anjaiah Nagar. Gachibowli, Hyderabad 11 Naresh Singh, S/o. Kishan Singh, aged 37 years. R/o Hrc 1 60/30/11i 136, Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 12 P Srinivas, S/o. P.Nageswara Rao, Aged 56 years, Occ: I usiness R/o. 268l2RT Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-57. A. Rajashekar, S/o. A.Bala Koteswara Rao, Aged 57 yea: Occ. Business, R/o 29, HIGH Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad 57 .13.

14.Smt. Naga Sailaja Kadiyala, Wo. Ram Babu, Aged 48 yr: rs, fl/o. H.No.10-3- 282121A128, Venkatadri Nagar, Humayun Nagar, Hyder:rlr rd 2t) ..RESPONDENTS No.3 to 14IDEFI:,IDANTS No.1 to 12 ( R3 to Rg and R13 and R14not necessary ) lA NO: 'f OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r; cumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Cou r may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No.1517 of 2018., on th: frle of Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge- Cum - Vl Additional MSJ- : rm Family Court Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally pending disposal of the a t cve CRP. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between '1 . P.Srinivas, S/o. P.Nageswara Rao, Aged 56 years, Oco. usiness, R/o 268l2Rf , Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500 057

2. A.Rajashekar, S/o. A.Bala Koteswara Rao, Aged 57 year , Occ Business, R/o. 29, HIGH. Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad-SOO 057

3. Smt, Naga Sailaja Kadiyala, Wo. Ram Babu, Aged 48 y: rrs, Rio. H.No.'10-3- 282121N28, Venkatadri Nagar, Humayun Nagar, Hydera I rd- 500 028. (R12 to 14 GPA Holder) AND ... Petitioners/Res[r( ndents No.12 to 14

1. Smt. B.Nirmala, Wo. T.lvlanmada Rao, 7 Dlo. late B.Venkatnarayana, Aged 58 years, Occ: Housewife. R/o. H.No.1-25, Anantha Sagar Kondapur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District,

2. Smt. B.Padmavathi, W/o. Suclhakar, D/o late B.Venkatnaraya na, Aged 53 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-1-2511 , Netaji Nagar, Sangareddy Town District ...Respondents 1 & 2/Plaintiffs 1 & 2

3. B.Ashok, S/o. late B.Venkatn araya na, Aged 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.199, Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli. Hyderabad

4. B.Srinivas, S/o. late B.Venkatnaraya na Aged 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.199, Telecom Nagar. Gachibowli, Hyderabad

5. B-Govind, S/o. late B. Venkatnarayana, Aged 48 years. Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.199, Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

6. B.Sanjay Kumar, S/o. late B Narsing Rao, And grandson of late B-Venkatnarayana, Aged 26 years Occ. Student, R/o Plot No. 199, Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

7. Smt. B,Kamalamma, Wo. D.Prakash Rao, D/o. late B.Venkatnarayana, aged 48 years, R/o. Plot No.132P, Telecom Nagar. Gachtbowlt, Hyderabad. 8. Nandu Singh, S/o. Kishan Singh, Aged 54 years, R/o H.no 1-60/30/1 1/136, Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

9. Kishan Singh, S/o. late Lalman Balram Srngh, aged 78 years. R/o Hno.1- 60130111I136,Aniaiah Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

10.Ashok Singh, S/o. Kishan Singh, aged 63 years R/o H No 1-60/30/1 1/136, Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

11.Ndresh Singh, S/o. Kishan Singh, aged 37 years. R/o Hno.l-60/30/11/136, Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowlt, Hyderabad. ...Respondents No.3 to 1 1/Defendants No. 1 to 9

12. Dr.Shakeel Haider Khan, S/o. Late Rashiduddin Haidar Khan, Aged 56 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. H.No 1'l-5-488, Red Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana. .. Res po n denUlm plea d Petitio n e r/P ro posed P la in tiff No.3 (R12 to '14 GPA Holde0 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 14.02.2025 in lA No 1 of 2024 in CRP NO. 2177 ot2024. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Mohammed Sanaullah Farl'r n Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: Sri Sridhar Lonk: a Counsel for the Resporrdent Nos. 12to 14: M/s lndus Law Fi m The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETI'IION No.2l77 of 2024 3O.h DAY OF DECEMBER,2025 Between: Dr. Shakeel Haider Khan. Smt. B. Ninnala and l3 others ORDER AND . . . Petitioner ... Respo nden ts Heard Sri Mohammed Sanaullah Farhan. learned counsel for thc petitioner, Sri Sridhar Lonkala, leamcd counsel fot respondent Nos.I and 2 and M/s.Indus Law Firm, learned counsel fbr respondent Nos.l2 to 14 Pclused the entire record.

2. The present revision is preferred by the revision petitioner/proposed plaintiff No.3 aggrieved by the order passed by the leamed VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpalty ('triat Coun'), in I.A.No.469 ol 2022 in O.S.No.1517 of 2018 dated 15.04.2024, wherein a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Section l5l CPC for impleading the revision petitioner as party to the suit i.e., plaintiff No.3 has been dismissed RY,J cP.P 2111 2024

3. The background facts leading to filing o1' hc interlocutory application and the revision are that respondent Nos.l att i 2/ptaintifl's have tlled a suit for partition and separate possession o1- he strit schedule properl)' consisting of land adtneasuring Ac.0-27 gu I as l1-l Sr,.No. l0!) situated at Gacliibou'li Village, Serilingampally Man: rl, Ranga Rcddv District. The suit schedule propefty was owned b1' he father ol the respondent Nos. I and 2, whereas respondent Nos.3 to i ,i'ithor-rt any light, have created fabricated sale deeds. During pendencl ol said suit, the implead petitioner herein entered into an agreement o1'srr e ri'ith respondent Nos. I and 2 on 29.01 .202 I , agreeing to purchase the uncl videcl sharc o1'the respondent Nos.l and 2 in the suit schedule propertY Since there is an agreernent of sale between respondent Nos.I and 2 r'ith the revision petitioner, he is a necessary and proper party. Therefb r , an interlocutory application is filed to implead the revision petitioner

4. Respondent Nos.10 to 12 filed counter opposing tl: implead petition claiming that respondent Nos.l and 2 have created a 1-at ricated agrcenlent of sale. Respondent Nos.l and 2 do not have any exclusi e right to execute any agreement of sale as they do not have any rigtt and the rcvision petitioner also did not accrue any rights in the suit scllr ttle property. The revision petitioner can avail his remedies against respolt: :nt Nos.l and 2 in t 2 \ \ RY.J cF.P 2177 2024 separate proceedings, but he is not a proper and necessary party in a suit for partition. Hence, respondent Nos. l0 to 12 opposed the petition.

5. The leamed trial Courl upon exatnining tlie case of both the parties hcld that the premise on which the revision petitioner intcnds to be arrayed as a party to the suit is that he entered into an agreelnent of sale with respondent Nos. I and 2 for purchasing their undivided share in the suit schedule propefty. Respondent Nos.l and 2 are seeking partition of the scheduled property fiom the year 2018 onwards, whereas, the agreet-nent of' sale is entered into in the year 2021. Since thc suit lbr partition is still pcnding, the rights of the parties to the suit have not yet been crystallized. Fufther, there is the allegation about selling thc suit sctredule property in favour of def-endant Nos.6 and 9/respondent Nos.8 and I I herein in the year 1977 under registered sale deeds and subsequent sale to the purchasers. Be that as it may, the rights of the revision petitioner depend upon the rights of respondent Nos.l and 2. In the circurnstances, impteading the revision petitioner would expand thc scope of the suit' Lastly, it is held that the revision petitioner is not a proper and necessary party. Hence, the petition has been disrnissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is Preferred. 3 RY, cRt'_2177 2024

6. [n grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the triz ] Court failed to consider agreerrcnt of sale dated 29.01.2021 executed br .e spondent Nos. I and I in favoLrr ol the revision petitioner. Respondent I ,os.I and I hrrve admitted the clair. of the rcvision petitioncr and therclt r :. dicl not choosc to file counter and instcad reported no objection for all,r ving thc rmplead petition. The trial Court lailed to consider the no objr., tion rcported by respondcnt Nos.I and 2. Ref'erencc is made to judgrncr L rellorte(l in thc case of Kurra Murali Krishana Yadav v. Sri LaI.: hmi Rama Co- operative Building Societv Limitedr, wherein subseque: purchasers ucrc added as parlics to the suit. wherein it is held that there is ro irnpedi,ent to the Court fbr allowing an application for imple r ling s,bsequer.rt purchascrs. Thc agreerrent of sale clearly indicates that tl : sale transaction is to the extent of share of respondent Nos. I and 2. ()n: ' the preli,inary decree is passed. the title of respondent Nos.l and 2 rr ll be transf-erred absolutely to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the prese r :e of the revision petitioner is neccssary. while so, the trial court has arb trarilv disrnissed the implead application.

7. Respondent Nos. I and 2 filed counter-affidav I in the prescnt revision stating rhat they have repofted no objection br allowing thc implead petition. Further, reliance is placed on the judgnlnt in rhe case of- ' zozz 1s:;aLo zos 1nc1 I I 4 \ \ rB 7 RY.J cRP )177 2024 C.M.V.Krishnamachari v. M.D.Dhanalakshmi Ammal2 for supporting thc irnplead petition.

8. Respondent Nos. I 2 to 14 have filed a counter-cum-vacate sta)' pctitior-r opposing the revision petition alteging that the agrcemellt of sale datcd 29.01.202 I rvas executed pending suit and the saue is not enforceable. tt is stated that respondent Nos. I and 2 have no exclusivc r.ight or title to alienate their share during pendency of the suit as such the agreement entered into by them with the revision petitioner does not conler an1 right to the revision petitioner. It is submitted that respondent Nos. I and 2 in collusion u,ith the revision petitioner entcred into said agr eclnent' It is further subrnitted that impleading the revision petitioner would not bc eflective adjudication, but the same would complicate the issue Hence' contended that the trial Court has rightly dismissed thc imptcad petition and prayed to dismiss the present revision.

9. The leamed counsel for revision petitioner relied upon judgrnent of llon'ble Supreme Courl in Yogesh Goyanka v' Govindr, wherein it is held that there is no bar to the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite, even when the transferee has prior knowledge of pendency. It is held that when thedisputeconcemsimpleadmentoftransfereependente/ire,whohad ' atn tg68 uno taz ' vauu lsclosgt lzozq I 1 I RY,J c!il, 2177 2024 notice of penderl. litigation, such transfers are not voir.l , b initio. rt merely rcnders the rights arisin.'e lrom transfers as subservient t r the rights oi'the parties to the penrlir-rg litigation sub.iect to any direction r rat thc cour.t rnay I 0. Further, rhc [eamcd counscl fbr revision peti rner relied upo. judg*ent ol- thc Ilon'ble Suprerne court of India in t re case of vidur lmpex and Tratlcrs Private Limited v. Tosh A1: rtments private Limitetla, whercirr it is hcld that the questior.r to be det: rnined is whether the par-ty to be intpleadcd has purchased the propert-\ iom I par11 to a pendi,g suit. Thc IIon'bic Suprenre Coun has laid dor, broad principles that should govern disposal ofan application for impleac r rent, u,hich are as lo llows "36.'l'hough thcre is apparent conflict in thc obsenatior s madc in somc ol thc aforenrcntioncd .judgmcrrts. the broad princip t s which should eorcnt disposll olll application lor irnpleadmenl are: l. 'I'he CoLrrt can. at any stage of the procecdingr. either on an application nrade hr the parties or otherwise, direct it pleadmcnt of any person as pafl). rvho ought to have been joincd Ls plaintifl.or def'cndant or lvhosc presencc before the Court is rccessary for ellcctive and cornplete adju<iication of the issues ilolved in the suit.

2. A neccssary partr is the person who ought to bc., ined as party to thc suit and in rvhose absence an cffective dorr:c cannot be passed by thc Cour1. ) 'var.rulsc/oso:/zotz 6 RY,J cP.P 2t77 2024

3. A proper party is a pcrson whose prescnce would enablc the Court to complctely, eflectively and properly adjudioate upon all matters and issues, though he ma1' not be a person in lavour ol or against whom a decree is to be made.

4. lf a pcrson is not found to bc a proper or nccessar)' par11 . thc Cou( cloes not have thc .iurisdiction to order his in-rpleadnrent against the wishes olthe plaintiff. 5. In a suit lor spcci{rc pcrtormancc, the Court can order implcadment ol a purchascr u'hose conduct is above board' and ,vvho fles application lor being.joined as parry within rcasonable time ol'his acquiring knos'lcdge about the pending litigation'

6. Horrcver, il thc applicant is guilty of contulnacious conduct or is bcncliciary ola clandestine transaction or a transaction madc b} the owncr of thc suit propertf in violation of the restraint order passed br thc Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court rvill hc fulll' .lustifled in dcclining the prayer lor impleadrnent'" ll. In response, the leamed counsel for respondent Nos'12 to 14 argued that the learned trial Court has passed the order upon considering the merits and that the same docs not need interference. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 12 to 14 relied upon judgment of High Court of Kamataka in the case of Master Thejas v. C.R.Babus, wherein it is held that even if a parly to the suit succeeds, the implead petitioner's right would be subservient to the rights of such parties. The subsequent purchaser cannot seek any independent right against the plaintiff or against the defendants. His remedy is only against his vendor and none others. No right is created under an agreement of sale with respect to immovable property, except the 'w.p.tto.tz2o3 of zo14 {GM cPc), datedo2.o7.2o24 7 RY,J cRt,_2t77 2024 right to seek specific perfbrmance of contract agai, t its vendor and therefbre. the subsequent purchaser is not necessary fir dctermination of d isputc between tlrc partics.

12. [urther, relcrence is macle to the case betwee ,: .lagannath Rao Khanderao Kedar r'.s (iopinath Bhmaji.,, wherein t Le ttigh Court ol Bombay held that rn a suit fited tbr partition and seprrr r re possession, the proposed parly clairning .iglrts on the basis ol'agreerncr ol'sale executed in his lavour- by so.re of the detcndants, r1o convevancc las been executed in favour ot' the subsequent purchaser in view of Sectio r (r4 of rransf'er of Properly Act, the subsequent purchaser has no interest n the property as the agreement of sale does not crc'ate any interest in th: sub jcct matter of the agreernent.

13. Irurther, relia,ce is placed on the case between lndian overseas Bank v. M.A's. subramanianT, u'herein the Hon'bre Sr orenre court herd that an agreement of sale in respect of imrnovable F -opcrty does not transfer title in fa'our of the purchaser under the agreerrr .nt. Scction 54 of Transf'er of Properly Act, I982 does not create any intcr t st in the property through an agreement of sale. I ) ' 2022 scc online Bom 1228 7 2025 SCC OnLine 5C 2619 8 I

14. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thc case of Ramesh Chand through LRs v' Suresh RY.J cP.P 2177 2024 Chantl8, whercir-r it is hetd that Scctio' 54 of the Transfer of Property Act' containing the detjnition ol'sale, does not include an agreement of sale which neither convcn> any proprietary right in lavour ol transferring' nor does it create any interest or charge in the propeny'

15. In the backdrop of the above citations relicd upon by the respective counsel, it is seen that the suit is tlled tbr partition and separate possession' Respondent Nos. I and 2 trave trted the suit and after filing said suit during pendency ol the suit evcn bcfore their rights coutd be crystallized respondent Nos.'l and 2 have entered into an agreement of sale with the revision petitioner tbr sale of their undivided share. on the basis of such an agreement ol sale the revision petitioner intends to be arrayed as a party' that too as ptaintilt'. A suit for partition is between family members' ln case any third parlies are having any claim, they cannot seek their relief by getting themselves atrayed as a party to the partition suit' Rather' they have to file a separate suit claiming their rights against the person from whotn they have acquired the interest in any immovable property' 'zozs tt.tsc rosg 9 RY,J cRl, 2l'77 2024 {

1.1 I6. In the instant case, the revision petitioner ha; entered into au agreement of sale u'ith respondent Nos.l and 2 The -ir-rc rments in Indian Overseas Bank, M.A.S.Subramanian.'Iagannath lao Khanderao Kedar and Master'fhejas (atl cited supra)clearly rulcrl that an agrecment of sale oannot create al)y interest in the itntlovable prol:c ty' An agreelnent of sale gives a right to the Vcndce to file a suit fbr specili perlollnance. but no other relief. Further, the rights ofthe vcndee under a| agrectnent ofsale are subservient to the rights of thc vendor u'ho is a pafl) o the suit'

17. In the instant case, respondent Nos.I and 2 uht rave tiled the suit fbr partition have to cr;'.stallizc their rights and otrir then. the revision petitioner can exer.cise his rights against respondent No .1 and 2 under the agrqement of sale. Such an exercise of rights against r''': ;ondent Nosl and 2 cannot take place hcfore the clisposal of the suit lbr p rrtition. Instead of seeking to implead in a suit tbr parlition, the revisr ) I pelitioner has to initiate separate proceedings to exercise their rights agl inst the respondent Nos.l and 2. The learned trial court has rightly held I at tlie rights ol the revision petitioner are dependent on the rights of resIc rdent Nos'1 and 2' who have filed the suit seeking partition. Further, th: learned trial court has rightly held that including the revision petitione r would expand the scope ofthe suit and that he is not a proper and necessrrr y party' i 5i 10 RY,J cRP 2177 2024

18. It is to be seen whether in a suit for partition and separate possession, 7 the presence of the re',,ision petitioner is necessary and whether an effective dccree can be passed even in the absence of the revision petitioner herein. A person is a proper and necessary party only when his presence is a must fbr passing ef-fbctive decree. The guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited (cited supra) have stipulated that a necessary parly is one in whose absence an et-fective decree c"annot bc passed. ln the present case as an elfective ) ) decree can be passed cven in the absencc of the revision petitioner. A proper pafty is one ri,hose prcsence would enable the Courl to completely effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues in a suit though he may not be beneficiary under the decree. In the instant case, the \ presence of the revision petitioner is not neccssary for complete and effective adjudication ol the partition suit and he is a person, who is expecting benefit under the decrce. To sum up, the revision petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court sees no grounds to interf-ere with the impugned order passed by the trial Cou(. As such, there are no merits in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11 RY (')tI, 21'71 2024

20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismisi.d confirming the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the rrial Coun in LA. o.469 of 2022 in O.S.No.l5l7 of 2018. 'l'hcrc shall be no orcler as to c(). ;. Misccllaneotrs applications, if artr.. pending shall stand closcd SD/. \ - OSMAN ALI BAIG ASS I TANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPYII JECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Vl Additionar District and sessions Judge- l um-Vr Additionar ^ tVISJ-Cum-Family CourtRanga Reddy District at I ukatpally, 2 One CC to Srr lrr]ohammed Sanalllah Farhan, AJvocare :rpUCl ' 3 One CC to Sri Sridhar Lonkala, Advocate fOpLCf 4 One CC to lVl/s lndus Law Firm, Advocaie [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies { Sa/PS L I t I !2 l l I I I I I I I z ! ". ! I E I HIGH COURT DATED:30/1 212025 ORDER CRP.No.2177 of 2024 /, k C) 16 ttB 2m EsPAl-, c) d+ +- DISMISSING THE CRP Nb a"