LAWS(APH)-2005-11-65

KHADER ALI KHAN ALIAS ASLAM Vs. SAI BABA

Decided On November 22, 2005
KHADER ALI KHAN Appellant
V/S
SAI BABA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 24-11 -2004, passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dismissing the application in I.A. No.555 of 2004 in R.C.No.130 of 2004, filed by the petitioners to implead them as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the RC.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are absolute owners of the property, the same having been purchased by them under registered sale deed dated 9-5-2001 from their vendors, namely Smt. Usha Kiran, Smt. Neela Devi and Smt. Umita Kiran, who were gifted the same by Smt. Shobha Devi, mother of respondent No.1. He submitted that the vendors of the petitioners, respondent No.1 and his mother colluded and obtained a void decree from the Court of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 657 of 1998 dated 3-9-1999 and in pursuance thereof, obtained sale deed dated 25-2-2002. When respondent No.2 was evicted in pursuance of the said decree in E.P. No.93 of 1999, he filed C.R.P. No. 3423 of 2002, which along with C.R.P. No. 2166 of 2002, was allowed. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.2 was reinducted into possession. He submitted that the decree in O.S.No. 657 of 1998 and the sale deed obtained by respondent No.1 in pursuance thereof, is not binding on the petitioners. On the basis of the said sale deed dated 25-2-2002, respondent No.1 filed R.C.against respondent No.2, father of the petitioners, seeking his eviction from the premises, while the petitioners filed suit in O.S. No.2909 of 2004 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to declare that they are owners of the property. He thus submitted that they having purchased the property covered underthe R.C. proceedings from their vendors, are proper and necessary parties, and the Rent Controller committed an error in dismissing the same.