J H KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. MIR ZAMIN ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20-8-1977 passed by the earned third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in l.A.No. 703/1975 in O.S.No. 5 of 1969. The first respondent herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead him as a party (plaintiff) in thesuit. The case of the first respondent is that he is the real owner of the suit land in this case as well as in O.S.No. 527 of 1969 which were purchased through registered sale deeds No.s 772 and 773 dated 24th September, 1959 for valuable consideration. The first respondent being in Government service at that time purchased the property benami in the name of the second respondent herein and the entire consideration for the said proparty was paid by the first respondent. He further asserts that the second respondent herein js his maternal uncle and as such, he trusted him and purchased the property in his name. He got the suit filed through him but he incurred all the ex-penditure of litigation. His daughter was married to the son of the second respondent, but due to some family troubles, she was divorced and therefore, the relationship between him and the second-respondent and the other members of his family became very much strained. There is every likelihood that the second-respondent may act in a manner prejudicial to his interests and therefore, he has filed the above application to implead him as a plaintiff to avoid any cullusive compromise in the suit between the second respondent-plaintiff and the defendants-petitioners herein which would cause irreparable loss to him.

(2.) The contesting petitioners filed counter affidavit denying knowledge of the second respondent being a benamidar for the first respondent herein. They further averred that such a petition is belated and baseless and the first respondent should have come forward with his application at the initial stage of the suit itself and that he cannot now get impleaded as a party to the suit after a long lapse of time. Further more, it is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and that he is guilty of violating the Government orders by suppressing his property.

(3.) The second respondent who is alleged to be a benamidar for the first-responennt has, however, admitted that he is only a benamidar for the first respondent and that the first respondent is the real owner of the suit property. He has further stated that he has no objection to the first respondent being brought on record as a plaintiff.