PRAVEEN BETHAPUDI S/O BETHAPUDI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MILESTONES PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SAVITHRAMMA W/O GOVINDARAJU, D/O MUNIYAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter coming on for admission, it is to be noticed that the sale deed in respect of the suit property was executed in favour of a private limited company. The said company is not a party to the suit. Though no issue was framed before the trial Court in this regard, it was raised as a ground in the appeal. As is evident from the narration in the judgment by the lower appellate Court, the suit was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. It is apparent from the cause title and from a perusal of the sale deed, which is produced in Court, that the property was sold in favour of a private limited company of which the Appellant might have been the Managing Director. This did not make the suit competent, as it was necessary to file the suit against the company and not against an individual no matter that he was the Managing Director of the Company. The company is an entity, which has purchased the property. Therefore, it is necessary to implead the company a party to the suit. This is a glaring circumstance that is apparent from a bare perusal of the memorandum of appeal and pleadings and the judgments of the Courts below. Hence, the lower appellate Court not having noticed this glaring circumstance it would require the lower appellate Court to reconsider the effect of non -joinder of the purchaser, namely, the private limited company. Accordingly, the appeal does give rise to a substantial question of law namely, whether the suit was competent against an individual when the sale was in favour of a private limited company against which the suit was intended to be brought. The answer would be a firm "Yes". The suit is incompetent without the purchaser, the private limited company being made a party.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , the appeal is allowed at the stage of admission. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court to consider the scope and effect of non -joinder of the purchaser namely a private limited company.