KOSURU BHASKAR Vs. KOSURU RAMACHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these two civil revision petitions are inter connected they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) CRP No.1778 of 2005 arises out of I.A. No.481 of 2004 in A.S.No.53 of 2003 and C.R.P.No.1796 of 2005 arises out of LA. No.480 of 2004 in A.S.No.95 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. A.S. No.53 of 2003 is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.319 of 1995 and A.S.No.95 of 2003 is filed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.317 of 1995. O.S. No.319 of 1995 is filed by M. Tirupathi Swami and four others seeking an injunction restraining Kosuru Ramachandraiah, Govindaiah and Kamalamma from interfering with their peaceful possession of the properties specified in the schedule appended to the plaint, alleging that they had purchased the said property from Kosuru Ramachandraiah for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 20-6-1980 and were put in possession thereof. O.S.No.317 of 1995 is filed by K. Ramchandraiah against Karamsetti Saroja, Venkataramaiah, Modedugu Tirupathi Swamy Chennareddi Raja Reddy seeking an injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same property which is the subject-matter of O.S. No.319 of 1995 alleging that he is the absolute owner and in his possession thereof and that the defendants in the suit are trying to interfere with his possession. Both, the suits were clubbed and common evidence was recorded, on the basis of the evidence adduced the trial Court dismissed O.S.No.317 of 2005 and decreed O.S. No.319 of 1995. In the appeals preferred by Kosuru Ramachandraiah against the dismissal of his suit and the decree passed against him in O.S.No.319 of 1995 revision petitioners, who are the sons of the appellant Ramachandraiah filed I.A.Nos.480 and 481 of 1995 seeking to implead themselves as parties to the appeals on the ground that they also have an interest in the subject-matter of the suits and hence are proper, if not necessary, parties to the proceedings. Those petitions were dismissed by the first appellate Court by the orders under revision.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that revision petitioners, who are the sons of the first respondent Kosuru Ramachandraiah through his first wife, have an interest in the property which is the subject-matter of the suits, as that property was purchased by selling the jewelry belonging the mother of the revision petitioners, and that the father of the revision petitioners, with the help of his friends, had, with a view to, defraud the revision petitioners, filed the suit as if that property belongs to him and got filed another suit against him to somehow to defeat the rights of the revision petitioners, and to bring home the fact that the property in dispute in fact belongs to revision petitioners it is necessary that they should come on record, and further contended that revision petitioners in fact had filed O.S. No.71 of 2003 for partition of the properties including the property covered by the two suits, and by relying on Aliji Momonji and Co. v. Lalji Mavji and others, 1996 (4) ALD (SGSN) 65 = (1996) 5 SCC 379, he strongly contended that revision petitioners can be brought on record.