The High Court · 2025

Order

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is hied under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 04 'O7 '2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.335 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2O15'

2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have Iiled I.A'No'335 of 2O23 in O.S.No.137 of 2Ol5 to implead them in the suit as defendant Nos.6 and 7 being the successors of the suit schedule property and other properties from their grandmother [defendant No' 11' G.Narsimha Goud, who is one of the GPA holders of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - petitioners sworn the afhdavit and contended that the grandmother of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - petitioners by name Jangam Marthamma w/o. Iate J. Rajaratnam was the absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing Survey No'341, admeasuring Ac. i-34 gts; Survey No.345 to an extent of Ac'l-27 gts, total admeasuring Ac.3-2 I gts situated at Peddamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' During her life time, she executed a registered witl deed bearing' document No.78llll/2019 dated 2A.O3.2olg bequeathing the above said land \ \ 2lL3 and other properties in favour of the respond: rts herein - \4.\ petitioners. Jangam Marthamma (defendant No. 1 expired on

06.07 .2019 and thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 at r [ 2 herein - petitioners have succeeded to the above said lar ls and other properties by virtue of the will deed. On IO.O4.2O ) No. 1 - petitioner No. I went to the ofhce of th : Moinabad Maldal, Ranga Reddy District for t r 2, respondent Tahsildar of : purpose of mutation of their names in respect of the above said r :operties and VRO, Peddamangalaram village advised them ,() make an application for mutation in Mee seva, on the same < i 5', respondent No.l - petitioner No. t has obtained EC and he v L:; shocked to know that Mohd.Mohiuddin, [proprietor of the plairr i:f - petitioner hereinl has created two registered sale deeds in espect of the properties to an extent of Ac.l-24 gts v, t: document No.l7a6l2OO8 dated 2l.O4.2OOa for an extent of \ : O-20 gts., in Survey Nos.341 and 345 and vide document No t\O2 ol 2OO8, dated 25.08.2OO8 for an extent of Ac.1-O4 gts in l) r rvey Nos.341 and 345. Basing on the sale deeds petitioner h( t brought into existence several sale deeds in favour r Further, respondent No.l - petitioner No. I shocke: mutation application could not be received as the la: :in - plaintiff ' third parties. to kno\&- that ls were put in prohibitory list on account of a Court order in l t: above suit. Respondent No.2-petitioner No.2 is in [,ondon ancl t -re resppndent w :r:L::': '.:,f 3l t3 BRMR, J CRP.No.2245 of 2023 No. 1-petitioner No. I is preoccupied with his business, as such he is unable to look after the above said properties personally and they executed a GPA on 03.O8.2022. Respondent Nos.l and 2 herein - petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit and they may be brought on record as defendant Nos.6 and 7.

3. Petitioner herein - respondent No. 1 in I.A.No.335 of 2O23 filed counter and contended that they purchased total land admeasuring Ac.3-O3 guntas from J.Marathamma, out of which, she has executed two registered sale deeds in part i.e., Ac.0-20 gts and Ac.1-04 gts uide two registered sale deed document Nos.174612OO8, dated 2l.O4.2OOB and l8O2l2OO8, dated

25.08.2008 in Survey Nos.341 and 345. J.Marthamma had signed two other sale deeds to an extent of Ac.O-39 guntas and Ac.O-20 guntas on 25.O8.20O8 but evaded to appear before the SRO having received entire sale consideration from Mohammad Mohiuddin. Therefore, he filed a suit for specific performance. J.Marathamma already filed written statement in the above suit on 3O.O7.2OL8, having knowledge of interim injunction orders it is not possible for J.Marathamma to execute alleged will deed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 l;lerein - petitioners. It is clear that respondent Nos. I and 2 herein - petitioners have created forged will deed by impersonating J.Marathamma and they colluded together and created false will deed in the year 20i9 during pendency of the 4lt3 BRMR, J '- !l' .No .2245 of 2023 above suit. They are not proper parties to the prrr r:edings and prayed to dismiss the same.

4. The Trial Court after going through the matrr zrl on record has allowed I.A.No.335 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 cf 2015 on O4.O7.2O23 permitting the petitioners therein (resp, ,ndent Nos.l and 2 herein) to implead them as defendant Nos.6 rnd 7 in the suit, which is the impug:ned order.

5. It is mentioned in the cause title of the presen I ivil Revision Petition that respondent Nos.4 to 7 are not necessary ) arties.

6. lrarned counsel for t]re petitioner - plaintifl submits that trial Court failed to consider that respondent Nos. 1 r -rd 2 herein - petitioners found the registered sale deeds in EC on O.O4.2022 in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and failed t ) advise the respondents that the suit is for specific performan: r and not for declaration. In fact, out of four sale deeds the granc- nother of the respondent Nos. I and 2 i.e., J.Marathamma t x ecuted t\ ro registered sale deeds and for ba,lance two sale deeds r tLe refused to perform part of contract. The trial Court faile< to see that J.Marathamma frled written statement in the suit r r 30.O7.2O18 and there is an injunction order from alienating the l -rit property, in spite of said orders she has executed registered v, ll deed in the year 2Ol9 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. T' : Trial Court s/ 13 BRMR, J CRP.No.2245 of 2023 failed to consider that daughters of J.Marathamma have adopted the written statement filed by her but they did not say about the execution of the will deed and also failed to consider that there is a partition suit bearing O.S.No.14 of 2016 in the very same court and they are agitating their rights through will deed. The Trial Court failed to consider that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein - petitioners did not frle implead petition in the partition suit in O.S.No.14 of 2016 but to pressurtze t}l.e vendee-petitioner herein to settle the same in terms of money. The petitioner - plaintiff is dominus litis and no person can be impleaded against his will and wish. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions in the cases of (l)Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sa-hoo and othersl and (2) Kolli Sita Rama Su,amy Naidu Vs. T.Padma Rao @ Padma and others2 and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

7. Nodcc to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is served vide USR.Nos.8O325l 2023, dated 17.08.2023, however none appears for them.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material. 'zozz (o) np uo (sc) ' zozz (s) nLo sst (lp) 6l13 BRMR, J I tP.No.2245 ot 2023

9. Now the point for consideration is: whether th,: c,rder passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, R.R.District, irL I.A.No.335 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2015 dated O4.O7.2023 suI ::s from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interle rence of this Court or not.

10. Power of the High Court under Arttcle 227 :s supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribun:r s; under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdicti )n conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised irL crases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occas oning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming juris: i,:tion which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction r hich it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse r rarner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 S(l I OnLine SC 98s). I l. The petitioner- plaintiff has liled suit in O.S.ltr .137 ot 2O15 against J. Marathamma for specific performance I contract in respect of unregistered sale deed dated 25.08.2008 1,r rtaining to (i) Schedule - A Property i.e., AII that the agricultura i land bearing Sun ey No.34 1 and 345 admeasuring Ac.O-39 gts sit.r rted at Pedda Mangalaram viliage, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District I ):ng bounded as North: Neighbour's land (farm house), South: Neig- b ours laqd of BRMR, J CRP.No.2245 of 2023 Veera Reddy, East: Land in Survey No.341 part, 345 part, West: t and in Survey No.341 pa-rt, 345 part and (ii) Schedule - B Property i.e., AII that the agricultural land bearing Survey No.341 and 345 admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas situated at Pedda Mangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District being bounded as North: Neighbour's land (farm house), South: Neighbours land of Veera Reddy, East: l,and in Survey No.341 part, 345 part, West: Land in Survey No.341 part, 345 part.

12. J. Marathamma has filed her written statement and contended that she is the owner of the suit schedule proper[5r and denied the contents of the plaint and also the registered sale deed dated 21.04.2008 vide document No.I746l2OO8 and registered sale deed dated 25.08.2008 vide document No.1802/2O08. Apart from the above she denied the execution of unregistered sale deed dated 25.08.2OO8 and has not received entire sale consideration from the plaintiff.

13. During tJ'e pendenry of the suit J,Marathamma died and her legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 to 5 vide I.A.No.413 of 2022, dated lO.Ol.2O23 who are the respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein. Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 have adopted written statem€nt flled by J.Marathamma. al13 BRMR, J a ?J,.No2245 of 2023

14. On perusal of the registered will deed date<

28.O3.2019 executed by J. Marathamma [D 1] in favour of responc ( rrt Nos. 1 and 2 herein - petitioners, she as bequeathed land in sutr admeasuring Ac. 1-34 guntas and survey \ :y No.341/ 1, :.345, land admeasuring Ac.l-27 guntas, total admeasuring A: i!-21 guntas situated at Peddamangalaram Village of Moinabad I\{ rndal, Ranga Reddy District and also bequeathed House No.3-46 a.dmeasuring 35O sq.yds situated at Aziz Naga:. Village, Moinabad ]l andal, Ranga Reddy District. The agricultura-l land to an extent of , .,:.3-21 gts is forming part of Survey No.341 and 345, which : re shown in schedule A and B properties in the plaint.

15. It is the contention of the petitioner's counsel - rrlt t-here was an interim order against J.Marathamma to not to al ( rrate the suit schedule property to third parties, in spite of it sht c as executed registered w'ill deed dated 28.03.2O19 during pender L, l, of the case and that the petitioners have no right or interest over .he same.

16. 1 In Sudhamayee Pattnaik's casel; Supreme C,r rrt held that plaintiffs are Dominus litis - Unless court suo motu , [: rects to join any other person not party to suit for effective dec' x: and/or for proper adjudication as per Order I Rute 1O of CPC, r rbody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants agains. :he wish of plaintilfs - Therefore, subsequent purchasers could r ot haverbeen I /13 BRMR, J CRP.No.2245 of 2023 impleaded as party defendants in application submitted by original defendants, that too against wish of plaintiffs.

16.2 Above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the suit frled by the petitioner is for specihc performance of contract whereas in the above said decision it was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession.

17.1 In Kolli Sita Rama Swamy Naidu's case' the High Court held that 'to secure relief in suit, plaintiff has to establish execution of registered Will beyond all reasonable doubt in terms of law - And can succeed only if Court comes to conclusion that Wilt is genuine - For effective adjudication of controversies involved in matter, impleadment of petitioner and his two sons, not necessary - Decree can be passed, even in absence of petitioner and his two sons - Their impleadment as parties would enlarge scope and change nature of suit - Plaintiff being 'dominus litis', cannot be forced to join parties against whom no relief is sought for'. 17 .2 There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid dou'n in the above said decision.

18. Le:rrned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Jangam Sabitha and Rani has filed suit in O.S.NO. i4 of 2O16 on the hle of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad against ro/ 13 BRMR, J )ltP.No.2245 of 2023 J.Marathamma and others for allotment of hous: share to the plaintiffs therein [Sabithal in respect of agricultur r land bearing survey No.341/RUU admeasuring Ac.2-34 gunta r and Survey No.345 admeasuring Ac.l-27 guntas, total admea s rring Ac.4-21 guntas.

19. Order I Rule 10{2) of CPC states as under: "(2) Court may stnke out or add parties:- The Cour t stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the e either party, and on such terms as nury appear to the just, order that the name of any party improperly joine r plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, ald that tJ:e I person who ought to have been joined, whether as defendant, or whose presence before the Court may br, order to enable the Court effectually and completely 1 upon and settle all the questions involved in tlle suit, t,r rnay at any cplication of tlourt to be , whether as rme, of aly plaintilt or recessar5r in r adjudicate ,rdded."

20. As the respondent Nos.l and 2 herein - petitioners contended that they acquired the property by way r f a registered will executed by J.Marathamma and the other l:gal heirs of J.Marathamma are contesting the suit tooth ald I lil contended that unregistered sale deeds in favour of the pe iioryr dated

25.08.2008 are not executed. I I tl/t3 BRMR, J CRP.No.2245 of 2023

21. Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kasturi vs Iyyamperumal and Otherss held at paragraph Nos.7, 13 and 20 as under: "7. ... A purchaser is a necessar5r party as he would be aJfected if he had purchased with or w'ithout notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are - (l) there must be a right to same relief against such party in respect of t-he controversies involved in the proc.eedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. ... it is pellucid ttrat necessar5r parties are those 13. persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the court would be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in ttre suit was claimed against such person.

20. ... the two tests by which a person who is seeking addition in a pending suit for specific performance of the contract lor sale must be satisfied. As stated hereinearlier, hrst, there must be a right to tJre sarI:e relief against a party relating to the same subject-matter involved in the proceedings for specihc performance of contract for sale, and secondly it would not be possible for the court to pass effective decree or order in the absence of such a party." ' (zoos) o scc z:: t2l13 BRMR, J ( FP.No.2245 of 2023

22. A proper party is an individual, whose presen( ( would assist the Court in a complete and flnal adjudication. A p-- 'r;on claiming under a will is a transferees pendente lite if the u i I is executed during the pendency of the suit and they ar : considered representatives in interest of the original party ani :an generally be impleaded to protect their interest although the., clid not have any automatic right to be added. The order restrainir.l a party from alienating the property does not make the will ar,, : subsequent transfer automatically avoided instead it makes thr l.:ansfer sub- servant to the outcome of the suit.

23. Any transfer of the properry during the pende-l :y of the suit is subject to the final outcome of the Court, the pu - xrse is not to annul transfer but to render in effective against 1::e decreetal. Transferring property in violation of an injunction o: cler does not nullify legal status of the legatees or transferees anc lhey can still be impleaded and the legatees are proper parties, u I ose presence allows the complete adjudication of the issue. The i I rrnction only makes transfer subject to the Court.'s hnal order and I tLe Court carr evolve whether the transfer unde r the n,ill was validi] :rade despite the injunction but the legatees are still bound by th: :esylt of the --Sfecific performance suit. EF- i.i:::l ::'a::, :.:1': '.?- - ; \ To, l3/ l3 BRMR, J CRP.No.2245 of 2023

24. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kasturi's case' respondent Nos.l and 2 herein - petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit.

25. The Trial Court has observed in paragraph No.ll that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein - petitioners are nec€ssary parties to the suit and without whom all questions involved in the suit cannot be settled. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly allowed tJe application frled by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein - peLitioner to implead them as defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the suit and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

26. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stands vacated, miscellaneous application/ s, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER 1 2 J The Senior Cviil Judge Rangareddy Dsitrict Chevel One CC to SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL QUADEER, Advocate [OPUCI Two CD Copies G NVt]/S:\ HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 ORDER CRP.No.2245 ot 2023 o$( 1l 1: ;il. , $ * 21 )? s8,1 : .l-l[ rS DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETII ION a\ 0l