ANABATHULA VENKATRAMULU Vs. GOTTUMUKKALA SATYANARAYANA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this revision is whether the first respondent has been properly directed to be impleaded under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are The second respondent herein, who is the plaintiff filed a suit for ejection against the. defendant, who is the petitioner herein. He was a tenant on ground rent basis of an area of 110 sq yds. for the purpose of carrying the business in fuel, paying a sum of Rs. 45 per mensum, which was later enhanced to Rs. 65. In the year 1971 a permanent tenancy was created. This property, according to the petitioner herein, was devolved on the plaintiff 2nd respondent herein and his two minor sons under a settlement deed creating only life interest without any power of alienation in their favour. The said suit was filed on 14th December, 1979. Subsequently the subject-matter of the suit was alienated in favour of the first respondent herein under a registered sale deed executed on 12th December, 1980. However, during the cross-examination of P.W. 1 this fact of sale was brought to light and thereafter the first respondent herein filed a petition under Order 1 in to 10, Civil Procedure Code, on 29th January, 1981, to implead as one of the plaintiffs to the suit. This was allowed by the trial Court and hence this revision petition.

(3.) The two-fold contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri G. Srirama Rao, is that at the time of execution of the sale deed there was no attornment of tenancy and secondly, since permanent tenancy was created in respect of the suit property, no subsequent sale will be valid and binding and therefore, any attempt on behalf of the first respondent to get impleaded in the suit is of little or no consequences. He also submits that since Order 1, rule 10 (2), Civil Procedure Code, enacts that unless and until it is necessary for the Court in order to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit the Court may not order the implead petition. As in this case ex facie, there is no necessity to decide the matter involved herein, as the vendee cannot raise any objection whatsoever with regard to the subject-matter of the suit had therefore, his being impleaded is inconsequential