A SEETHIFRAMAYYA Vs. BH GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Revision Petitions arise out of a common order dated 10-4-1992 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, East Godavari district at Rajahmundry in LA. Nos.450 / 91 in O.S. No.4/89; 449/91 in O.S. No.88/88, 451/91 in O.S. No. 5 / 89 and 452 / 91 in O.S. No.6/89 respectively. Since the question involved in these revision petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by common order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows :- Bhamidipati Gopalakrishna Murthy, plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 88 / 88 and 4/89 and 1st defendant in O.S. Nos.5 and 6 of 1989 (one of the respondents in the revision petitions), is said to have entered into an agreement of sale, which is the subject-matter of suits, on 9-1-1983 with the revision petitioner for a consideration of Rs.95,000/-. Prior to the agreement, the said Gopalakrishna Murthy is said to have entered into an agreement of sale on 9-5-1976 in respect of the same property with the defendants in O.S. Nos.88/88 and 4/89 for a consideration of Rs. 18,500/-. Since the defendants in those two suits failed to pay the balance sale consideration of the agreement dated 9-5-1976 within the stipulated time of four months as was agreed, Gopalakrishna Murthy instituted O.S, Nos.88/88 and 4/89 seeking delivery and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property while O.S. Nos.5/89 and 6/89 were instituted by the defendants in O.S. Nos.88/88 and 4/89 against Gopalakrishna Murthy and others for specific performance of the agreement dated 9-5-1976. In the agreement dated 9-1-1983 entered into between the revision petitioner and Gopalakrishna Murthy, it was agreed that the latter would initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the defendants in O.S. Nos.88/88 and 4/89 and on succeeding in the litigation, the property would be sold to the revision petitioner. There was also an understanding between both of them that the revision petitioner would meet the litigation expenditure. As per the agreement dated 9-1-1983, the revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to Gopalakrishna Murthy as advance. He also paid a" further sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Gopalakrishna Murthy on 19-4-1983 enabling him to initiate legal proceedings as stated supra.

(3.) It is stated that all the four suits - O.S. Nos.88/88 and 4 to 6 of 1989 - are coming up for joint trial before the Court of the II Additional District judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The revision petitioner initially believed that Gopalakrishna Murthy was seriously contesting the matters, but on knowing mat he was surreptitiously intending to compromise the matter with the defendants in O.S. Nos.88/88 and 4/89 (plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.5 and 6 of 1989), defeating the interest of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner filed LA. Nos.449 to 452 of 1991 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading him as one of the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.88/88 and 4/89 and oneof the defendants in O.S. Nos.5 and 6 of 1989. The said petitions were opposed by the rival parties on the ground that the revision petitioner had no locus standi for getting himself impleaded in the suits since he had the knowledge of the agreement dated 9-5-1976, entered into between Gopalakrishna Murthy and the defendants in O.S. Nos.88/88 and 4/89, which was prior to the agreement dated 9-1-1983. The stand taken by the revision petitioner before the Court below was that in order to safeguard his interest, it was just and necessary for him to come on record as plaintiff in O.S. Nos.88/88 and 4/89 and defendant in O.S. Nos.5 and 6 of 1989.