The High Court · 2025

Petition urrder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file(l in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interin order dated 05-09-2024 passed in lA No 1 of 2023 in CRP No 3072 of 2023 in the interest of .justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section '15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 187 ot 2014 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Krammam pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. G RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PUTREVU PRABHAKAR The Court made the following: ORDER. THE HONOURABLE DR..IUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CML REVISION PETITION No.3072 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is lrled by the petitioners plaintifls aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.358 of 2018 rn O.S.No. 187 of 2014 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Khammam for dismissing the petition filed under Ordcr I Rule [0 read with Section l5l of CPC to implead the proposed pafly as dcl'cndant No.2 in the suit

2. The plaintiff No.l initially flled a suit against defendant No. I for recovery of money o1Rs.27,55,200/- rt'ith interest @24% per annum basing on a promissory note. He also filed l.A.No. l8ll of 2014 seeking attachment of the propefty in the narnc ol the det'crrdlnt. The said petition was ordered conditionally on 14.03.20 18. But prior to passing of the order lor attachment itsell the defendant transf-erred the said property by executing a gift deed in lavor of his brother - thc proposed dc l'endant No.2. The contention of the petitioner - plaintilf was that the det-cndant was indebted to several persorts and he was having only the schedule propefty and by defrauding the creditors, he gifted the property in the name ol his brother. As such, the brother of the defendant was also a proper and neccssary parly to the suit and filed a petition under Order I Rulc I0 read with Section l5l of CPC and Section 128 of the I' I I 2 -- - I Dr.G1. crp_3072_20:,- Transler of P'opefty Act (for short "T. P." Acr), I 8tt2 r.r-ird rvirh Rule 24 ol civil Rules ol Prac ice. The said petition was numbered as L \ No .]5g of 201g. The petitioner No. I died, as such, his legal representatives ,r,ere brought on record as plainrilfs :: r() 5 as per the order in I.A.No. I ol'-,02 1 dated 30.03.2002. Subsequently, I.A.No'358 of 2018 was dismissed by the reamed V Additional District Judge at Khammam as per the order dated 2 I .08 2023. ) Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the peritioners - plaintifn prelerred this revrslon

4. Though the respondent No. I also made his 1l)pearancc through his counsel Sri P.F rabhakar, he failed to contest the matter

5. Heard s,ri G.Ravi chandrasekhar, reamed c.rirseI ror the revision petitioners and Sri c.v.v'Prasad, learned counsel lor the proposcd respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the peritioners - plaintil'ls subrritted rhat the respondent No. I - defendant gifted the entire propcftv o his brothcr i.e. the respondent No.2 - proposed defendant in a lraudulent nranner. As such, the court below ou6,ht to have allowed 1.A.No.358 of 201 g as cer Secrion I 2g of the T.P. Act, 1882 'rhe court below failed to appreciare rhe conrention of the petitioners that the transaction ryq9 g lraudulent transacrion, and that the 3 DT.GRRJ crp _3072 _2023 defendant gifted the property after knowing that the suit has been filed against / him and erred in passing the impugned otder and prayed to set aside the same.

7. Leamed counsel for the proposed respondent No.2 on the other hand contended that the petitioner was not. connected to the suit. He was not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. No shorl' cause notice was issued to him under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 ol CPC, Out ol love and affection, the elder brother of the proposed respondent No.2 gifted the properly. The gift deed was dated

09.03.2018. But the interim attachment order was passed on 14.03.2018. As such, the gift deed was prior to the interim attachment order passed by the Court. Section 127 of the T.P. Act, 1882 comes into picture only after decretal of the suit. but not during the pendency of the strit and prayed to dismiss the revision.

8. Perused the record.

9. The record would disclose that thc suit was filed by the plaintiff lor recovery ol money based on a promissory' note. A conditional order was also passed on 14.03.2018 vide I.A.No. l8l I ol 2014. But during the pendency of the suit and pendency of hearing the I.A., the delendant executed a gift deed in favor of the proposed respondent No.2 - def'endant No.2. The contention of the plaintiff was that it was the only properry available and the defendant with an intention to defraud the creditors had transf-erred the said property in the name 4 Dr.G\ crp_3072_202- of his brother. As such, there was no chance for him to reco'er decretar al-nount if the suit rva; decreed in his favor, as such contended rhat the proposed party / delendant No 2 rvas a proper and necessary party to be rrnpleaded in the suit, as the decree corrld not bc executed without his presence. 1 0. It was a settled raw under section l 2g of the r-. r). Acr, r gg2 that the tiability of th,: donee is restricted to the liabirity of the donor ar the rime of execution of gift deed. As per Section 12g of the T.p. Act. rgg2. rvherc, if a gift deed comprist's ol'the donor's whole property, the donee becomes persona y, liable for all the dcbts due (and liabilities), of the donor at rhe tirne orthc gift. but only to the extent of the property received. ,\s such, thc donce is responsible for the donor's liabilities, subject to the valr-re of the gifi reccived by him. Section l2n olthe T.p. Act, 1gg2 is enacted for c,suring that the debts and liabilities .f the donor are not escaped when the dorror's entire pr.operly is translerred to z singre person through a gift. The donee beconrcs guarantor of those debts to the cxtent of the value of the gifted propcn).. As such, the donee can be co,side'ed as a proper and necessary party particrrl.rly if the transrer is found to be frarrdulent or intended to be executed to def'e,rt the creditors,clairn. As the defend:rnt had transferred his undivided share in thc name of the proposed resporrdent / defendant No2.through a registered gift dced during the r-- I . DT.GRR,J trp 3072 2023 - pendency of the suit, the proposed respondent No.2 _ defendant No.2 was a proper and necessary party. The trial courl .)n an erroneous understanding that if at all the suit was decreed, the respondent - dcf-endant was the person to pay the debt or not would be decided afler ruil-tledged trial, dismissed the petition. But, however considering that it was a lraudulent transfer made by the defendant during the pendency of the suit in the name of the proposed party with an intent to defeat the creditors' claim and as the decree could not be executed without his presence, it is considered lrt to set aside the order passed by the learned v Additional District Judge at Kharrmam in I.A.No.35g of 20lg in o.s.No.l87 of 2014 dated 21.0g.2023 and the proposed respondent No.2 is directed to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit. 12- In the result, the civil Revision petition is ailowed setting aside the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.358 of 2018 in o.S.No. 187 of 2014 by the learned V Additional District Judge at Khammam. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applicarions pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY NT REGISTRAR AS E TION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional District Judge at Khammam 2. One CC to SRl. G RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. PUTREVU PRABHAKAR, Advocate [OPUC] F

4. Two CD Col:ies 5. One Spare ()opy PB/gh w HIGH COURT DATED: 0S)10612025 \ -.: _4/ l""o?'' t., L: 'J c -t r S ra {i n( 19 sEP 2[2t ORDER CRP.No.3072 of 2023 '.: \. ALLOWING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS +CO y(eA Y*- ,fiw