KUNA RAMULU Vs. KUNA ANNAPURNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :The revision petitioner assails the order dated 15-2-2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet in IA No.40 of 2002 in OS No.70 of 1996.

(2.) The petition was filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to come on record as a supplementary defendant. His case inter alia in the affidavit filed in support of the petition was that the house bearing No.1-5-120/1 was purchased by his son late Pendam Yadagiri who was in possession and enjoyment of the same and after his demise the petitioner being the father and Class-I heir became the owner and possessor thereof and therefore he was necessary and proper party to the suit. The petition was allowed under the impugned order since the 1st respondent-contesting plaintiff failed to file his counter. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit having been filed way back in the year 1996 and aforesaid property having been purchased under registered sale deed dated 20-11-1999, during the pendency of the suit the 3rd party petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The legal position is no more res Integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh, 1996 (5) SCC 539. The property having been purchased during the pendency of the litigation is hit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the purchaser is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and he cannot be permitted to come on record. In view of the clear legal position, although the 1st respondent-the revision petitioner has not filed any counter, the application could not have been allowed by the Court below. The impugned order therefore is unsustainable in law.

(3.) The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances of the case no costs.