The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all the further proceeding in OS. No.696/2021 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the revision petition preferred against the impugned order dated 1910912022, passed in l.A. No. 171 of 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch. Satya Sadhan Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Dinesh Gilda, representing Sri Damodar Mundra The Court made the following: ;;-F*=ry ,{ *.* THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA ]RANI CML REVISION PETITION No.2963 of2022 ORDER: This Clivil Revision l)etition is filed by the petitioner - proposed defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the leamed IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,, Hyderabad for dismissing the petition filed by her under ( )rder I RLrle I 0 read with Section I 5 I of CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, seeking her irnpleadment.

2. The respondent No. I is the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 is the defendant in O.S.No.696 of 2021. The proposed delendant No.2 is the daughter of the defendant

3. As seen from the facts of the case, the respondent No.1 - plaintifTfiled the suit against respondent No.2 - delendant for eviction from the l;uit schedule property. for arrears ofrent and mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit, th<i revision petitioner - proposed defendant No.2 liled I.A.No.l7l of 2022 to implead her as defendant No.2 on the ground that the sale deed dated

08.06.2017 registered as document No.3349 of 2017 in favor of the respondent No. I - plaintiff by the respondent No.2 - defendant, his wife and his mother, was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff, instead of a morrgage deerd, lbr a debt, I I I I I I I 1 I I i I t i I I z Dr.GRR, J crp]963-022 borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff. The revision petitioner contended that she was the joint owner of the plaint schedule property and that she had a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit and that she was a proper and necessary party and for the just disposal of the matter in controversy, sought to implead her as proposed defendant No.2.

4. The trial court on considering the contentions of the counsel for the proposed party i.e. the revision petitioner herein and that of the counsel for the rdspondent No. I - plaintiff and as the respondent No.2 - defendant failed to file his counter nor submitted his arguments observed that he was sailing with the proposed party - his daughter and got filed the petition only to dodge the proceedings in the suit, dismissed the petition.

5. Challenging the said dismissal, the proposed defendant No.2 preferred this revision

6. Heard Sri Ch. Satya Sadhan, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Gilda, leamed counsel representing Sri Damodar Mundra, leamed counsel for the respondent No. I - plaintiff on record. 7 . Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had got joint rights in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was purchased by respondent No.2-defendant from the sale consideration amount received on sale of a joint family property. Without having any right, the j !ffiEEffi---z ff-r :7/ 3 Dr.GR&J crp 2963 2022 respondent No.2-defendant executed the document in lavour of respondent No.l-plaintff behind her back infringing her rights. 'fhe petirioner was a necessary pany. The trial court dismissed the impleadment petiti,rn basing on presumptions and surmises without affording an opportunity to the revision petitioner to participate in the trial tflough her impleadment, and pr-ayed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to implead herself and to submit her case.

8. Leamed counsel fbr the respondent No.l - plaintiff submitted that the respondent No. I - plaintiff purchased the suit schedule prrtperty from respondent No.2 vide registered sale deed in the year 2011 . Th,: respondent No.2 sold the propedy along with his mother and wife jointly in favor of the respondent No. I - plaintiff. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 entered into three (03) lease aqreements with the respondent No. I - plaintiff. The respondent No. I - plaintiff filed the suit for eviction for [Lis bonafide requirement and rccluested respondent No.2 to vacate the prerrtises and to handover the vacant possession, as he also defaulted payment oi'rents since June, 2021. The contention of the proposed party was that the suit schedule property was acquired through the joint family nucleus obtained fi.om the sale consideration of the.ioint family property belonging to her. grandfather and she being a coparcener of late Iska Vasanth Kumar (her grandfather) was entitled for a share in the suit property and the sale deed was executed by respondent No.2 in favor of respondent No.1 - plaintiff infringing her rights, but she failed ,/ r/ 4 Dr.GR&J crp]963J022 to file any suit for paftition or separate possession nor prayed to declare the registered sale deed and rental deeds as null and void.

8. t. Leamed counsel for the respondent No. I plaintiff further submitted that the leamed IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on considering all the aspects, that the suit for eviction was filed basing on landlord - tenant jural relationship, but not on title and considering the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court and the provisions under Section 116 of tlie Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the definition of "tenant" under Section 105 of the Transfer ol Property Act, 1882, held that the revision petitioner - proposed defendant No.2 was not a necessary party - No interference of this Court was required in the matter and prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.

9. Perused the record and the impugned order.

10. The suit was filed by the respondent No. I - plaintiff for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits basing upon the jural relationship of landlord and tenant vide registered lease deeds executed between him and the respondent No.2 - defendant. It was not a suit for title to consider the contentions of the revision petitioner / proposed party, whether the suit schedule property was purchased from out of the nucleus of the joint family property or not and whether she was entitled for a share in the suit property and whether her rights were infiinged due to the alleged sale between the respondents I and 2. As Dr.GRR, J erp 2963_2022 rightly observed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, 5 Hyderabad, the proposed party ought to have filed a proper suit, if she had an interest in the suit schedule property, if any, but could not agitatt: the same in the suit for eviction tiled by respondent No.l against respondent No.2. The trial coun on consic['rirrg rhat thr' transactions between respondents I and 2 were through registered sale deed and registered lease deeds and that thcre was a presumption that registered documents were validly executed strpporting the landlord and tenant relationship between the respondents and the vyord',tenant,' includes the daughrer of the lessee, who had been living with the tenant in the building as a mcrnh.'r of the tenant's family and considering the judgments of the Hon'blc Apex ('our1 in Kamarjit Singh v. Sarabjit Singh [20 14 l6 scc I 4721 and a three-Jucige Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in Ram pasricha v. Jagannath [( 1976) :1 scc 184] observed that the tenant in a suit fc,r possession I I was estopped fiorn tluestioning the title of the landlord under Sectic,n I l6 of the Indian Evidcnce Acr, 1872. The trial court considered the Division Bench judgment ol- this (lourt in M.Sanjeeva Reddy v. M.Vinodhamma in c.c.c.A.No.89 ol 21t19 dated l0.06.2022,wherein the above judgrnents of the Hon'ble Apex court were extracted and held that what was importrmt was that so long as a jural relationship existed between the respondent - tenant and the appellant and so lons as he had not surrendered the possession ofthe premises in his occupation, he could not question the title ofthe appe[ant to *re property. 6 Dr.GRR, J *p]963_2022 ll. This Court does not find any merits in the contentions raised by the revision petitioner in the grounds of petition or any illegality in the order of the trial court to set aside the same.

12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 19.09.2022 passed in I.A.No. 171 of 2022 in O.S.No.696 of 2021 by the leamed IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL AS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER t. The lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Ch. Satya Sadhan, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Damodar Mundra, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies DUgh w I l I l HIGH COURT DATED:12lo2l2O2s I rHc o '' l- ,\ \ 21 APn 2SU5 .) o (.) r\, ,i'.sn \-..:= r.'l C'.i('o J ORDER CRP.No.2963 ot 2022 DISMISSING THE CRP i I i ! i I