MITTA SANJEEVA REDDY Vs. SHAIK FAKRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 28.02.2011, passed in I.A.No.942 of 2010 in O.S.No.8 of 2010 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dismissing the petition for impleadment of the petitioners as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.

(2.) a) Shaik Fakruddin-1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and Kondakkagari Nagulamma-2nd respondent herein is the sole defendant in O.S.No.8 of 2010 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2010, in respect of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.40,00,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. The defendant agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.39,90,000/- on or before 30.08.2010 and execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant refused to receive the balance sale consideration offered by the plaintiff and to execute a registered sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. The reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the suit read as hereunder: It is therefore prayed that the Honble Court may be pleased: (a) to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.39,90,000-00 from the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property within a time fixed by the court, failing which the Honble Court may execute such a regular sale deed on behalf of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. (b) to direct the defendant to pay the costs of the suit; [c] to pass such other relief or reliefs, as the Honble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the suit. Pending the suit, the petitioners herein viz., Mitta Sanjeeva Reddy and Mitta Veera Nagireddy filed I.A.No.942 of 2010 seeking their impleadment as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The case of the petitioners as set out in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.942 of 2010 is that the sole defendant in the suit has no right over the suit schedule property to execute an agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2010, in favour of the plaintiff. The suit agreement is not true, valid and genuine. Notices have been exchanged between the sole defendant and the petitioners. Para.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment petition needs to be noted and it is thus: 3.I humbly beg to submit that when remours were spread out at the suit village about the intended mischievous actions of the sole defendant K.Nagulamma W/o.Manga Reddy, resident of Kondakkagaripalli of Gurramkonda (PO) and Mandal about her threat of interference and alleged alienations, myself, the 2nd petitioner herein and two others got made paper publication in Eenadu daily of Kadapa District Edition, Rayachoty zone on 24.8.2010 with true and correct facts, appraising the public of our absolute rights and title over the suit properties herein along with other properties and requested the general public not to enter into any transactions or documents with the defendant. The said paper publication dated 24.8.2010 is filed herewith which may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit for all purposes. The contents of the said paper publication dated 24.8.2010 were to the full knowledge of the plaintiff and the defendant herein. They cannot dis-own the contents of them. The sole defendant herein got made a reply publication in the same paper on 1.9.2010 through her counsel Sri N.S.N.Prasad, Advocate, Madanapalli with all false, mischievous and baseless allegations. For the kind perusal of this Honble Court, the said reply publication dated 1.9.2010 is filed, may kindly be perused for appreciation of the facts. It is not out of context to submit here that in the above reply paper publication, dated 1.9.2010, the defendant herewith has asserted that she never made any alienations or intended to make any alienations as apprehended by me and my brother in our paper publication dated 24.8.2010. But quite surprisingly and against the contents of the reply paper publication dated 1.9.2010, the defendant and the plaintiff colluded together actively, brought into existence the alleged suit document dated 21.5.2010 for the plaint schedule properties with all false, fake and imaginary recitals so as to endanger our valuable proprietary rights over the suit properties by hook or crook. To judge the genuineness of the suit agreement, dated 21.5.2010 and its falsity, the tone of reply paper publication dated 1.9.2010 is sufficient and that the same is not enforceable under any circumstances whatsoever presented by the plaintiff herein. The defendant is hand in glove with the plaintiff, in bringing into existence of the alleged suit agreement, dated 21.5.2010 for the alleged sum of Rs.40,00,000/- filing of the said suit for the alleged relief of enforcement of the suit agreement, dated 21.5.2010 and issuance of the alleged lawyers notice, dated 23.8.2010. These are all staged managed and highly manipulated deeds of the plaintiff and the defendant together cunningly, so as to impair our legal rights over the plaint schedule properties having known the contents of our paper publication dated 24.8.2010 under those circumstances besides other, the plaintiff is not the vendee under the suit agreement, dt.21.5.2010 and the defendant cannot boast herself of the status of a vendor there under, in view of the clear and categorical denial of their rights already in the earlier paper publication, dated 24.8.2010. The question of therefore enforcement of such an agreement, dt.21.5.2010 does not arise at all and these proceedings are being taken out and conducted by the plaintiff under a mask, behind us. b) The plaintiff as well as the sole defendant filed counters resisting the application filed by the petitioners seeking their impleadment, as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. c) The sole defendant denied the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. However, both the plaintiff and the sole defendant, resisted the impleadment petition on the ground that the proposed parties are not proper and necessary parties to the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 21.5.2010 and their impleadement, as party defendants, changes the nature of the suit. d) The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the proposed parties are strangers and therefore, they are not necessary and proper parties to the suit for specific performance and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 28.02.2011. The said order is assailed in this revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the property covered by the agreement of sale, allegedly executed by the 2nd respondent herein, and as their rights over the property are likely to be affected in the event of the suit being decreed, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit for specific performance. A further submission has been made that the suit for specific performance is a collusive suit to defeat the rights of the petitioners and that the 2nd respondent, who allegedly executed agreement of sale in favour of the 1st respondent, has no title or possession over the suit schedule property. Since the petitioners have a fair and semblance of title and interest over the suit schedule property, the application filed by them seeking their impleadment deserves to be allowed. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. ((2007) 10 SCC 82) and judgments of this Court in Lekkala China Masthan Naidu & Ors. v. Meda Sarvani & Anr. (2010 (2) ALD 725); Basant Kumar Soni v. Mukund Das Soni & Ors. (2010 (4) ALD 490) and Kiran Krishna Real Estate & Constructions Private Limited v. Siddipeta Ranga Reddy (2011 (4) ALT 335).