The High Court · 2025

1 Akula Laxman Rao, S/o. Late Srinivas Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Private Employee, Ryo. 1 3 Park Avenue, Hutton, Brentwood, Essex-CM 13 2QL, temporarily staying at Villa no. 322, Ashoka Ala Mansion, Dalapally Road,Kompally,Hyderabad,Telangana5000T2. (Petitioner) Manikonda Rama Rao, S/o. M. Ramchander Rao, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Plot No.1 1-B, Medical Society, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072 Goda Rajendar, S/o. G Kishtaiah, R/o. H.No.1-83, Near Hanuman Temple and Hanuman Veedi, Narsapur, Medak District - 502313. Vanamula Omkar Yadav, S/o. Late V Ramulu, Aged about major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.4-31, PS Road, Narsapur, Medak District - 502313. Vanamula Buchesh Yadav, S/o. Late V Ramulu, Aged about major, Occ: Business R/o. H.No 4-31, PS Road, Narsapur, Medak District - 5023'13. 3 4 5 ...Respondent No. 4 to 7 (RESPONDENT NO.4 To 7 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTTES tN THIS tA) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir.r support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay order dated 03-09-2024 in l.A.No.1 of 2024 in CRP No. 2748 ot 2O24 and dismiss the CRP. Gounsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Venkatesh, Senior Counsel representing Sri Sathvik Makunur Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 3: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 7: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER I The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yata Civil Revi.sron Pctition No. Order: I his (-ivil Rcr rsir.rn l)ctition is filed aggrieved by thc impugncd orrlcr datttl 19.06.2024 in I.4.No.885 o( 2023 in ( ).S.N, r.l I oi 2o2] <,n thc filc o[ the learned Principal District -ludqc it \ [t,-leli.

2. Hcerrl Sri .\. \'cr-rkatesh, learned Senior (,ounscl rcprcscntinr Sri Sethvik Makunur, learned counsel for thc f( \ lS l1 rll 1-rctiti.ne r./ plein ti[f and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velir.cla, lcurnc,-l c( ,rrn:( l f .r thc rcspondcnt Nos.1 to 3,/implcad P( flfl( )n( 15. .1. \ ptritt,rrr vitlt l.:\.No.885 of 2023 was {lled bv thc rtsp.ntltrrr', irrrplcatl pctitioncrs under Ordet 1, Rule 10 ol(.t'](- to irrrplurrtl tlrt'rrr ns tlt tindant Nos.5 to 7 in the main suit t.c. (,4 lo1.1. 'thc rnain suit is filed [or spccitic ().S.\t,. ll l'rcr t1 rrrr:rncc ,,i Nlctnorandum of understanding darcd l-l.lli.l(ll5 :rntl \grcetnctrt o[ sale dated 14.05.20'l-] arrcl 2 L consequential declaration that the salc dccd document bearing No.2491 of 201,8 is null and void. Upon considering the merits of the case of rcsp()ndcnts, thc pcution *,as allowed i.e. respondent Nos.1 to .3 tre implerdccl as clcti'nclant Nos.5 to 7 in the main suit. AgEricvcd bv thc siurlc, thc present re'rision petition is preferrcd.

4. In gtounds of rcvision. it is plcedctl that rhc learncd'Irial Court did not c\arnrnc rvlrcthcr rhe prr,p< ,sed parties i.e. respondent Nos- 1 to .J u crc prope r untl nece ssrrv parties for adiudication of a suit tor spccitlc pcrti rnnrnce of N{cmorandum oI understanding ancl .\urccr)r( nt 'i s:rlt. lr, rth datcd 14.05.2015. It is furthcr c()ntcnllcLl tlr:it rrn c l'te ctrr t rlrcrcc can be passed even in thc abscncc oi rcsporttltnt \,,..I tr, .l against whom no relief is sought. 'l hc controvc rsr is ,,nlr lrctrr'ce n the revision petitioner and resl-lorrdcrtt \r,.,J to -, lrcrrvccn rvhom thc Memorandurn of r rntlcr. t;rrt,-linq ,rrr,-l \rlrccutcnt oI salc, both dated 1,4.05.2()15 lrc c\ecut((1. 'lhc rcspr,rrtlcnt Nos.l to 3 ate not partics to the \ lcrrto r-lrrrtllr rn ( )i ull(lcr:rilrt(linri or ,.\grcement v .lF // ( I ) : : -1:: o[ salc. liurthe r, rcspondcnt Nos. 1 to 3 are not interested parties ar,d arc corrpletclv third partics. It is further pleaded that the partics vh() arc claiming intlcpcndent tide and possession advcrsc t() thar ()f n( )sscssion oi vcrrd()r cannot be impleaded in a suit firr spccitlc p( rti)nnrurcc br incrcasing the scope of enquirv into a suit fi rr dcclirration ,,f rhc ritlc o[ the plaintiff. The learned f'rial Court has lre hcr cti rhc r crsion ol respondent Nos.1 to 3 that thc strir schcrlulc pr( )pcrr\ '',r,es undivided share of Madhav Rao, Srinivas l{:ro tnrl l)uclrna I{eo b1' lailing to consider t}rat the avermcnts 0i rhc rirle ,,i thc r.cndor does not come under thc pun,ic,,r. oI sLrit ti,r spccif rc pcrt.rnrancc. The learned 'frial Court accordirru tr r tlrr, rc r lsion Pctitione r ered in coming to c()nclusi()n tlr;rt rcsl)r,rrtltrrt \r,:.1 to 3 arc having an intcrcst in thc prr pcrtr .rrrr.l thrrr rhcr rrrc pr,,pcr and neccssary parties: It is plcadcd rh:rr rllc lrl.rrntrit- \ tl\t tlo/lti ur btas and, the learned 'frial Court clrrrr, rt :rllor.r tltt rt sllorr,.lcnt Nos.1 to 3 be arrayed as partics xn(l c, ul1.,t l titt rcr ist, ,n pe titioner/plaintift to agitatc againsr thcru, :rgainst s h,,ttr hr rk rcs not waflt to contest/agitatc. .l \. Or-r the basis of aForemcntionccl grounds, it is pravetl thar the I impugned order be set asidc

5. During arguments in rcr-ision, thc lclrncd counscl lor the revision petitroner contendcd thrt thc plaindli is lrtntittrr.t lint.r io a suit for specific performancc and l-rc hrrs t right to choosc against whom he wishes to contest thc sr.rit. It rs ar.qtrtrl thar thc rloninas lins should not be compelied to agitatc :rsrinst thc partics against whom he does not want to c()ntcsr. l;trrthcr, ir is plceclcd that in a suit for speciFrc pcrftrrmancc. othcrs r,, ho irc n( )t parties to the Mcmorandum of understandin{.I rntl \qrccrncnt oi salc both dated 14.05.2015 are not ncccsser\ p:lrnLs :rrr,-l tlrcrt'tirrc, the lcarned'Irial Court erred in allon-tn11 tlrt irrrPlcrir-l 1rctitron. Irr this rcgald, the learncd counscl ti rr rcr isrorr: Irt titr.rrt r r'.lrctl upon iudgment of the Hon'blc Sr-rprrrlt. ( .r,rr , ,i lntliu rn Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and othersr. s lre rr.irr. rhc I l, 'n'lrlr' Sirprcme (,ourt considered the onlr' gucsti,,rr r,i u,httlrtr irr:r suit for specific performance of crinrrecr tor sak. ,,i n 1trr,l.,crtv instituted I (".005) 6 scc 733 ) ,)h I 5 by a purchascr against the vcndor, a stranger or a third party to the contract, claimins to har.c an indcpcndent tide and possession over thc conffacted l)r()pcrtr. is entidcd to be added as a deflendant in thc said suit. In that rcqard, thc twin test that are to be satisficcl urrc u,ith rcgrrd t, r thc clucsrion of who is a necessary parh, and s.ho is :r pr( )pcr l)art\'. A proper party is one I I whose presence is ncccssrrv to adjudicatc the controversies involved in a suit lor specitlc pcrtirrnrancr' of contract for sale. It is held that a third parft' ()r strarltrcr t() the contract canflot be added so as t() c()n\.crt a suit fllc.l ti,r- onc asrcement into a suit fot different al]rcen]ent. It is els,, hcltl tlt:rt in a suit for specific perflormancc rri corrtr:rct t.r :rrlc. thc tk,nittts /itas cannot be forced to c()rltcst agairrst rr h, ,nr he dr,cs n()t want to contest unless it is a comprrlsi,,rt ,,t thc t trlt' ,,1- [a,,r'

6. While so, rhc lcarncrl corrrrsrl iirr rcspondent Nos.1 to 3 argued that a collrrsir t sr-rit is llletl t-ithout the knorvledge of respondcnt Nos. l [() i rr, rr h re s1'rccr r. l)r()pcrw in whom the rights of thc orr,.ncrs :lr( r( )[ r t t tlt t:idctl. It is argued that the \ / \ 6 Agtecment of sale and the Memorandum o[ understanding arc cxecuted in respect of the property in rvhich other orvners har-c a sharc and the propcrty is not partitioned allotting spccific sharc o[ thc rcspcctive owners. 'fhcreforc, in casc rnv dccrec is passed, the same cannot be executed as the propcrn oI thc l)erriu: ls n(,r vct dcmarcated within the total extent o[ land. ,\s srrch, to br-irt: the truc facts before t]re Court for proper ldjuclicari,,n ,,i :r surr frrr speciFrc performance where thc origin:rl dc[cntlerrts clr n.t havc anv riglrt over specific piece of [and, rt is plcltlctl th:rr the inrplcadment oI respondent Nos.1 to 3 is ncccsserl t-. A pcrusal o[ the record shorvs tlrar rhc rcvisi,,n l)r'uo(,n(.r' frled a suit for specific performancc irllirinsr rllu rcip,,rr(i(.nr Nos.4 tc.r 7 with respect to propern rvhich rs sulr;ccr nr,rrrt r oi r.'qistctcd salc deed dated bcaring dc)cunl( r1r \r ,.ll l N j .t' l I l. tlatcd it1.12.2013 wherein the plaintiiflrcr rsion pt.riti,,rrcr lrt.re in llonu with onc Akula Lalitha exccLrtccl thc s:ritl .ulc ..lt.crl in tlvour r>[ rcspondent No.4 for salc of [)r( )pcrrr 11.l1isl1 1,, r rpt.rr l{r,t admcasuring 605 sq.yds., in Sv.No.ii/.\-l bountlr.tl lrr \, rr-rh: i I --..r-rl 7 Sangareddy road, South: \1asar.i hotcl, East: I It dcrabad road and \West: Land of Padma Rao. 'l'hc Nlemorandum of understanding dated 14.05.2015 cxecutcd bcnr,ccn thc rcr-ision pctirioner afld rcspondent No.4 shows t[-rc schcrlulc as ()pen plot in Sr'.No.8/A3 admeasuring 255 sq.vds., bounrlcd bv r'.r.-orth: Ltnd bclongs to the vendor 350 sq.yds., in Sv.No.U/,\1. Srtrth: \/irsavr hotcl, East: Hyderabad road and West: Lrtnd oi l):rclrne llao. 'l'hc Agreement of sale dated 14.05.201,5 cxccr-rtcLl bv rcspt,nclcnt i'.,.-r,.-l in favour o[ revision petitioner is with rcspcct t. l:rrtd aclr-ncasuring 255 sq.yds., with boundaries on North: l .entl lrcl, rnts t( ) thc vcrldor 350sq.yds. in Sy.No.8/.\3, Sourlt: \'as:tvt I l,tcl. l:ast: Ilvderabad road and $7est: Land r-,f l'atlnre Ilirr,. 'I ht [)cvclopment Agteemenf-cum-Gencral l)oscr oi .\ttortrer tlttctl 11J.08.2015 is cxecuted by respondcnt Nos. I tr, -l:ttrcl tltctr t:tthcr l-atc Akula Madhava Rao in favour oi rcs1,, rrttlcrtt \r,. 1 rr.itlt rcsl'rcct to land consisting of 500 sc1.1'ds., irr Sr.\r,.li,/.1 .Ltl oi totrtI cxtcnt of Ac.O.19 Gts., situated at N:trsaptrr r illrts :rrtd ( irrnrpanchayat, Narsapur Mandal, I\'lcda k I)isrrict tirlt lrr,,-tttd:trils on North: / ) :8 Sangatcddy to -I'oopran P.rV.D.Road, South: Neighb()urs open placc, lJast: l,lnd bclongs to M. Rama Rao and Wcst: ()pcn llntl in Sr'.No.B/3 belonpp to M. Srinivas and othcrs.

8. In vie rv oF dre Development Agrccment-crrnr ( icncrrl l)orve r of ;\ttorney with possession datcd 18.08.20 I -i. tlrc rcspondc:nt Nos.l to 3/implead petitioflers arc claimirrs r() hlrtc 1l11 hrtcrcsl ln thc property which is sub ject nrattcr , ri thc d( )curncr)ts on which the specific performancc is s, ruqlrt l. c.. \ lr'rnorrnclur-r o[ understanding and Agrccmcnt , ri selc. lroth (lxre (l I -+.( )5.201 5. t). lhcrc is an issue about the non-pavmcnr oi roral sult, ct ,rt s tdcrlttiort bv respondent Nos.4 to 7 ancl tlLlc ro rlon Pu\ nlcrlt. thc \lcmorandum of understanding ancl \l]rt.crrrr.nt , rt :rrlc. lr.t[r rlxtcd 14.05.2015 were executcd lrrr rc c, rrrr t.r , ,l- ]ii s,.1.r tls.. irr t.rvour oI the revision petitioner. \}u'hcn thc s:t nt ( \\ :I: not tL rnt, thc strit frrr specific pefformance rvas f-ilc.l r,r hcrc:rs rht cr rntcnrio|r , ri rcspondent Nos.l to 3 is that as Ptr s:rlc tlccrl d..ircJ lo. l:2t)l j, the cntire sale considcrarion w.as ;.rui1l. \s, 1.1.,1 9 recitals at Page No.2 of the sale dced, total sale consideration of I Rs.18,15,000/- 1S paid.'lherefrrre, according t() respondcnt Nos.1 to 3 / implead petitioncrs, non-pavmcnt of sale consideration leading to enterir-rg o[ Nlcmoraodum of undcrstanding and Agreement o[ salc. lroth datccl I l.{ ).i.2( )15, arc false and therefore, to present thc truc facts. thcrr pres,:ncc is neccssary.

10. Having regard to the facts ancl circurnstarrccs oi tht'casc, thc point to be considered for irnpleadinq anvt.,oth ls 1r l)artv t() a suit is whether their presence is ncccssan tor ailiutlication oi thc casc and passing a decree. The subie ct nllttcr ( )i t lrc sr-rit fr rr spccific performance is 255 sq.vrls. ,i l:tntl in 5r.\, r.tl/.\3 situated at Narsapur Villagc and N{entlll. \ [ctllk [)isrrrcr. lr lucl.r ts also figured as part oIthc l)cvckrpt.ncrrr .\srcctttcnt crrnr ( il).\ u,ith possession executed in fav<,ur ,,t- rcsp.nrlcrtt No.-l .\ccording to respondent N<>s. I to .1, :r ci,llLisrr r suit is tllctl ro clcprir.e their rights under thc l)cr cl,prricnt .\urrcrncnt. S'hereas, according to rcvision pctiti( xrrr rnd rrspon.lt nt \os.{ I I :: 10:: to 7, rhc implcad petitioners arc not a party to the Memorandum of undcrstanding and Agreement of sale, both dated 14.05.2015 anrl thcreforc, thcv cannot be impleaded as parties as thev xrc not partics r() rhc contract. 'fhere are well settled principles tt-rat tht scopc r,[ suit frrr spccific performance cannot be enlargctl br cr rrrvcrrinq it into u suit for tide and rhal. a dominus litus carl.x bc firrccrl to c()nt(st a suit against a party against whom he docs not ',,r'ish to c( )rr[('st. l;urthcr, rvhen a third party interest is invoh'crl I antl env irrdgrnent and decrce that is passed in a suit fcrr specifrc p( r-ti )nnanc( is likelv to e ffcct the intetest of such othcr plrt\ u h, r lus :rn inrcrcst in thc subject property can be implcaclctl :rs e P:trt\ tl r rltc sLltt. I l. 'l hc I lon'lrlc Suprcmc Court of India in H. Anjanapp:r r. A. Prabtrakar.r h:rs rhscussed about the scope o[ Ordcr l, llLrlt, llt ,1',.1 1)rtltr \\ll ltutc 10 CPC as being similar and hcltl thrrr rhc ( .r,Lrrt rs rcrluircrl t<l rccord a Frnding with regarcl ro tht, I)crs()rt solr{hr t(} ltc rmplcaded aS party in the suit is ciilrcr t )o2s Scc onLine sc 183 - a :: I l:: ncccssary or proper party. Further, this Court in Munirunnisa Begum alias Muneer Hyder and another v. Pilli Mallaiah and others3 has held that it is discretionan' to grant a rclicf undcr ()rder 1, Itule 10(2) CPC and in cxercisinir thc clircction, thc court will takc into account the wishes of thc plaintiff bcfrrrc adding a thtd person as defendant to his suit ar.rcl also ii thc c()urt finds that addition of the ncw defenclar-rt is ncccssarv r<r cnablc it to adjudicate effectively and completclv the rl:rtter rn c( )ntr()vcrsv between the parties, it will add a pcrs( )n ils rl clcferrdant cvcn without the consent of the plaindif-. Ir is tirrthcr hcld that iI the party claims interest over thc particulur I]r( )l)cn\ ,rr prt,cccdings, thc court has to add them as partics

12. lrr rl-rc instant case, under the Dcvclopnrerrt .\rrccrrrcrrt ctrnr-(lcneral Powcr of Attorncy wirh p,sst'ssi,,n, tlett.l I ti.()l'i.2( )l -i, the interest of respondcnt Nos. I ro .1/inrPlc:rtl 1-rctitioncts is likety to be effected by the outcon-tc oi thc suit ti rr spccitic pe rfirrmancc. Further, thc prescnce oi rcsl-r,,rt.lcnt \,,s. I ' 2025 (1) ALT 145 ::12:: to 3 is ncccss^n t() bring f<rrth the actual facts before thc Court for granting thc rchei o[ specific performance as v/ell as cxccution of :L .lccrrc. '['hcrcfore, this Court does not see any infirmin' in tlrc ortlcr passcd bv the learned'frial court. As such, thcrc arc no rrrt rits in thc Rcvision Petition and the same is liable to lrc drsmisst'd

13. .\r:c,,rtlrnqlr. thc (-ivil ltcr..ision Petition is dismisscd corr t-rrrnrnq tlrc rmpLrgnccl ordcr passed by the leamed Principal [)istrict.lLr,.lt;t rrt \ltthk, in I..'\.No.885 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 202j. ihrt.l l().o(r.lol l. N() c()srs \: rr strlrrtl rhcrero, misccllancous petitiofls, iI anv, 1'rcrrr,lirtg rrr thi: ptlirurn slrtU stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// SREENIVASA REDDY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principal District Judge, at Medak. One CC to Sri Sathvik Makunur, Advocate I One CC to Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, Advocate [OPucl Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 E I I I HIGH COURT DATED:241o912025 ORDER CRP.No.2748 of 2024 I I ?0Ju2m * !,- * DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION (, e\ a ict' Xs