The High Court · 2025

Asriculture R/o. H. No. i'i;i Kanoivrr"g" '"d Nn"ioal' sdnga Reddv District 4 Jonnada Manemma, wo- Jonnada Gangaiah Aged 65 vrs occ Agriculture R/o. H. No. 1- B+, Kanoi"viri;ij;;; l\i;;d'l' saisa neoav oistrict 5. Jonnada Yadaiah (DIED PER LRs R11 to R1.3)' S/o Jonnada Narsaiah Aged 55 yrs, occ Agriculture hi":'i 1; il e2l1''x'ijoi Village and Mandal' sanga ReddY District 17- 3-788 Brahmanwadi, Yakatpura HyderaDao

6.K.DevenderYadav,S/o'LateBalaiah.Age53yrs,occBusinessR/o'H.No. 7. Goriqe Lalitha, wo. Late Narsing Rao Aged 73 years occ Housewife R/o H No. i6- 2- 7 4 1 t N I sn.riiig'h;d: Nl"J''iVt'*'i tvtalakpet' Hvderabad u

9. Gorige ljh,rbl:r. Wo. L F,T'% 'i,:,::1:i..ii",sr.# *"?1";".8:e,f,r43",.,rrrJ,?': r?:;[:1. Emproyee j::,''',i,,l.ro\19i*".,fJrr,iE:?ffi l,fl%llf il"r"[ ,"rJ;Sfi 3:;"[f""1**r"

10. Gorige \i/r ,ri. l/o Late H ru6 r i- i, i;eoiilL3;,3:ifi';J*t",157 vears, occ r)vt t mprovbe R/o 1'1. Kothago;rlr:r li r atha D/o Late.Jonnada yadaiah. Occ Not Kn >wn, R/o 1 - " ffi:IH'ii; i;:E:lu:^l/o- LatlJonnada yadaiah As^e1 3e years, occ Nor 145, Chr,e, rar,jrri Nawabpet. x.V'Hr"g, ft""iJvl.tn,,n,, pra(:esh District I el;rnc - 13. Jonnada Ravinder, S/o , -, r royS?np? y. Sadashivpet Manoat. pe ddh, rpur. Medak xno*n, pr. 'i ;"- ,Zioi',lr?131'S[X,:iii*4r""".37 vears occ Not (R11 TO Il"3 aFtE BRO| 5Rf i5,xs, ji..,"*",ugEli\,8?.31%^i,lf,?p^i,i11p,=,,.,.A:fr " IANO:1O F 2024 ,.. RESPoNDENIS/PETITIoNERs/PRoPoSED I)EFENDANTs Petition urrdr:,r Sioctir [:,iit:ii# jl; jr;[:ih:"."ff :t,,,?n3il,;n,1"":tiH]Ji:"",:.,j::T,: [:;m,ui::rili,$#.Jji{H,1,::,fffji:s" ji,.i:, jl,tlTsfl IA NO: 10F 2023 Petition unrle, {)r.,r:ti "rior",tii[;;;,,r1;1;j:.1:1 c19 pravins that in the circumstan:es stated rn t" ::ru::*lym:!,;:;ifl :it";"J-'il}'i:#;'J,S"JJ,iljlfj5f t};:*::l Counsel for the petitiorrer(s): SRl. G SINDHU Counsel for the Reis pc,r rrJents: p VENKAT REDDY The Court rfiade the following: ORDER t HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA AI,ISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.38 39 0F 2023 ORDER: Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated lg.lO.2O23 passed in IA.No.1l75 of 2022 in OS No'139 of 20L9 on the hle ofSenior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, the present Revision Petition is frled.

2. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. G.Sindhu, leamed counsel on record for revision petitioners, and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.I to 4.

3. The petitioners are defendant Nos' I to 3, respondent Nos'l to 4 are proposed defendants, respondent No'6 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.7 to l0 are defendant Nos'4 to 7 in the suit' It appears that during pendency of this Revision Petition' respondent No.5 expired and as such, his legal heirs were brought on record as t respondent Nos.l I to 13.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No'6 frled the suit in OS.No.l39 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy for specific performance against the revision petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to l0 herein and the suit was ) LNA, J {)RP.lt o.3839 of 202} pending acljudication. While so, respondent Nos.l to,s Irercin hled an appli,:.ar icn in I.A.No. I 175 of 2022 to impJead thernselvcs as defendan :s r r the suit. In the said application, it wrrs a. ,erred that the suit s .:hc lule property was purchased by their an(,cstc r by name Jonnada ,t4t )aralt under unregistered sale deed dat,:d 2C.04. l95g and thar. rhel are in actual physical possession of.the suir schedule propert),; thrrr they have also filed an applic,ation b:fore the Revenut: ,\Lthority for regularisation of the said unr:gisrered sale deed/Sarla Brr nama and the same is pending adjr,dicrtion and therefore ,. , hr:., have right and interest in the suit s,:hec ulc )roperry. They furth,r':r.,,erred that defendant Nos.l to 7 vuithc,ut any valid title to the su;t schedule properfy have entered into agret,me nt of sale with th irrl parties and as such, they are necessary Jrarti,:s to the suit since tlLeir lights will be affected and hence, prayerl to ,mplead them as part ies ro the suit. 5. The p,:titirtners herein resisted the said application, howsysl, the trial co.ft vide impugned order dated rg.ro.2ct23 irllorved the said applicatron ,vith a condition that the proposed ctefendan.s have to confine th,:i . r,ersion only to the suit pleadings and tt at tlrey are prohibited to pr_tflorth their claim and title, which nray :harrge rhe / 3 LNA,,I CRP.No.38j9 oJ 202j person a suit for sPecific Perfot nature of the suit completely' Aggrieved by the said order' the present Revision Petition is filed' 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that in mance' one has to establish the title of who entered into agreement of sale in favour of the purchaser, and it is settled principle that third parties are not necessary parties in the light of nature of the suit' He further submitted that the two judgments referred to and retied upon by the trial court in the impugned order, i.e., judgment of Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumtibai and others Vs' Paras Finance Company and otherst and the judgment of High Court of Kamataka tn Wrir Petition No'1621 of 2022' dated 13'09'2022 (Chinnaswamy Gowda Vs' Shivaramu C'M' and others)' the title of the proposed. parties therein was clear and therefore' they were permitted to be brought on record' However' in the present case' the proposed defendants are claiming title under unregistered sale deed i.e., Sada bainama which does not confer any title and as such, they have to work out their remedies separately and considering the said aspect, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application. Learned counsel further submitted that plaintiff t (2007) 10 scc 82 4 remaln c(l i.) LNA..I ('RP.A o.tB3g of 2021 parte in the implead application, whic_r cl.arl y show proposed defenda;rts z nd hence, that he i,; l-rlrrd in glove with the the trial rlo r rt ought to have di ground rl:ro :rrd finally, prayed to allow this Revision peti .ion. 7. smissed the applir:atio"r on that I)er- cc,ntra, Iearned counsel for respondenf N,). I to 4 submitted that the trial Court, by duly considering the l.acts and circumstances tf the case, has rightly allowed the. application. He further s:h mi ted that while allowing the application, r hs ftial Court has rrnpr sed certain conditions that the proposed part es have to confinr: .ht:rr vsp5i6n only to the suit pleadings and t, rey are prohibitcd i-orr putting forth their claim and title 'vhich may change th,: nature of the suit schedule properfy. tht:refr,re, no pre.yudice rvo ulcj bc caused to the petitioners herein if the prrrposed defendants lrre brought on record. He finally cont(rnderl that Revision petiriorr is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismir,sed. 8. Perusal c1 :he impugned order would disclose thiit th,: trial Court by ret'errr n s to and relying upon the judgments in S,umtibai,s case (cited tullra) and Chinnaswamy Gowda,s case (cit,:d srrpra), has allowec the lpplication on the ground that since the pro:osed parties are clarnrrng rights over the suit schedule property their 5 LNA' J CkP.No.3839 oJ 2023 rights also would be affected and as such' they are necessary parties to the sutt' It is relevant to note that in the application hled to imPtead 9. the proposed parties as defendants to the suit' it is contended that the ancestor of the proposed parties have purchased the suit schedule property under unregistered sale deed/Sada Bainama dated 20.4.r95g and an apprication filed for regurarization of the said document is pending' and that the plaintiff colluded with defendant Nos' 1 to 4 and frled the aforesaid suit to knock away the suitschedulepropertybelongingtotheproposeddefendants.

10. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Sada bainama is dated 20.04.1958, however, the proposed defendants except stating that an application is filed for regularization of the said document and the same is pending consideration' have faited to fumish any details as to the date of submission of application for regularization ofthesaidSadabainamaoranyotherstepstakenbythem,etc. Thus, the proposed defendants failed to place on record any material evidencing their title to the suit schedule property' As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners' in the judgments relied upon by the trial Court in the impugned order' 6 \-I--- LA'A. J t-RP..a o.JBJ9 of 202J t.e., n S'un, tibar',., case (cited supra) and ChinnastL,arrr..t) Gowda,s case (oitod supra), the title of the proposed parties is clear and evident, ,vht:r'eas in the present case, the proposed rjefe,rdants are claimins ;-rrllris in the suit schedule propefty un,ler Sadz bainama dated 2o.tt4 ,)5g and admittedly, the said Sada bairramr, was not yet been r,:-s I [irrized I l. As r.e::rrds this lssue, it is apt to refer to the j udgment rendered b', rull Bench of the Hon,ble Apex Court tn Ka:,.turi Vs. Iyyamperuntti and others2, wherein it is held that in a suit for specific per-fir rnance of contract, the ls between venr lor and person(s) irt u,lr,rsc favour agreement of sale is exercutr:d w as only to be gonr: , ntc and it is not open to the court to decide r,rhether any other prrrt! or parties have acquired any title and pos.;ession over the contrarted property. The Hon,ble Apex court turth:r held that partics c airring independent title and possession ad'erse to the tile of the \eld,l. and not on the basis of the contract are not r)roper parties and i1' sr,r:h parly is impleaded in the suit, the scope cf the suit for sper;il'Lc 1x:rformance sha[ be enlarged to a suit frrr title and possession wlLi<;lr is impermissible. ' (2005) 6 sct: u:;: 7 LNA' J CRP.No-3Ei9 of2023

12. In the tight of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi's case (cited supra), the application filed by the proposed defendants ought to have been dismissed by the trial court since the said proposed parties are claiming independent title to the suit schedule ploperty basing on Sada bainama, that too, which is said to have been executed way back in the year 1958' i e'' on 20.04.1958 and which is' admittedly' not yet been regularized' 13. In view of the tbregoing reasons and the legal position' the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity and irregularity and hence, the same is liable to be set aside' 14. Accordingty, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated lg'lO'2023 passed in IA'No' 1 I 75 of 2022 in OS.No.139 of 2019 on the frle of Senior Civit Judge' Sangareddy' is set aside Miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed' t5. No costs. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL rPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, N- Senior Civil Judge, Sanga ReddY 3"n.;;i; ;Rt "c'srxo"Hu Advocate [oPUC]---..^. #:;; iI sli p vir'rrer REDDY Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 4 .ss,zgh 6 1Ht Sr4 I€ o /,o. I 2 1 ,Jittl 2025 ,i * \{\i -l .,, ,,/, HIGH COUIFi'r DATED:09 tOfit2O2S l I i I ! ORDER GRP.No.3g3$ ,c,f 2023 ALLOWNG THt: C.R.p. WITHOUT COST.S 6 ilr( ?\