KIRAN KRISHNA REAL ESTATE Vs. SIDDIPETA RANGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 2578 of 2009 in O.S. No. 55 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge's Court, Nalgonda, dated 20-04-2010 allowing the petition for impalement of the 1st Respondent herein as the 9th Defendant in the suit.

(2.) The suit for specific performance between the revision Petitioner and the other Respondents in O.S. No. 55 of 2008 is pending trial and the 1st Respondent herein came up with this petition claiming that while he and his three brothers are sons of Rami Reddy, the Respondents 2 to 9 herein are the heirs of Siddipeta Shivaiah. Rami Reddy and Shivaiah are natural brothers and legal heirs of Balaiah. Balaiah was the original owner and pattedar of the lands in question and there was no partition between Shivaiah and Rami Reddy. After the death of Balaiah, the joint possession and enjoyment between the children and brothers continued and the 1st Respondent herein claimed that he came to know about the sale of some agricultural land by Respondents 2 to 9 herein under document No. 4297 of 2008 a registered sale deed and also sale of Ac. 5.16 guntas in Sy. No. 144 in favour of the Plaintiff though the total share of Respondents 2 to 9 herein is only Ac. 4.36 guntas. As they have sold the lands beyond their share, he sought himself to be impleaded as a party to the suit.

(3.) The Plaintiff resisted the request of the 1st Respondent herein claiming that the entire revenue records show that the lands were sub-divided as per the possession and enjoyment of the parties and the Plaintiff/revision Petitioner has no knowledge about O.S. No. 56 of 2008 filed by the 1st Respondent herein for partition of property against the other family members. The revision Petitioner stated that the 5th Defendant/Sudhakar Reddy filed O.S. No. 54 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Bhongir, making the Plaintiff also as a Defendant and the said suit was dismissed on 28-12-2007 holding that there was partition of all properties earlier. The third party to the suit without any right in the suit schedule property cannot attempt to impaled himself without any privity of contract between him and the Plaintiff and, therefore, he desired the petition to be dismissed with costs.