JEENU NOOKARAJU Vs. CHAKRAVARTHULA VENKATA RAGHAVA CHARYULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is an appeal arising out of the order dated 23rd january, 1998 passed by the learned single judge dismissing c.m.p. No. 11445 of 1996, filed under order 1 Rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, in a.s. No.3326 of 1982.

(2.) facts, in brief, are that an agreement was entered into, between jeenu viswanadham (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff) and the five defendants- respondents, for sale of agricultural land, on 10th april, 1974 after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as advance. Original suit No. 137 of 1979 was filed by the said plaintiff seeking decree for specific performance of agreement of sale. It was contested by the defendants. The said suit o.s.No.137 of 1979 was decreed with costs on 18th march, 1982 by the i additional subordinate judge, kakinada, for specific performance directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed conveying the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at plaintiffs expense pursuant to the agreement of sale. Balance sale consideration payable by the plaintiff to the defendants was directed to be deposited in court within two weeks.

(3.) aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the i additional subordinate judge, kakinada, appeal (a.s. No.3326 of 1982) was preferred by the defendants to this court. During pendency of the said appeal, the sole plaintiff expired on 2nd september, 1990. Defendants/appellants filed c.m.p. No. 15640 of 1990 under order xxii Rule 4 of the code of civil procedure seeking to bring smt.jeenu raghavamma, the widow of deceased-plaintiff, on record as the sole legal representative of the sole deceased-plaintiff-jeenu viswanadham. That application was filed within the period of limitation. While the said application was pending, the three brothers of the deceased-plaintiff jeenu viswanadham, who are the appellants before us sought their impleadment in the appeal by filing separate application (c.m.p. No. 11445 of 1996) under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that they had a right to be brought on record being the brothers of deceased-plaintiff and members of the coparcenary. They alleged that the agreement of sale, specific performance of which was sought in the suit, had been entered into by the deceased-plaintiff jeenu viswanatham in the capacity as a coparcener and for the benefit of the coparcenary. They also contested the application filed under order xxii Rule 4 c.p.c by filing their reply/objection. They alleged that the proposed legal representative was divorced many years ago and the sole plaintiff thereafter had no concern with her as he did not remarry and died issueless. They thus wanted that they be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff.