B SOMAIAH Vs. AMINA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against an order refusing to add the petitioners herein as additional defendants in the suit. The suit is filed to recover possession of Ac. 212-00 of land against the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Praga Tools Corporation, a public limited company. Praga Tools Corporation is in occupation of Ac. 100-00 of land out of the Ac. 212-00. According to them it is the Government property. The suit is filed by the plaintiff, the 1st respondent herein, alleging that her late mother Mahbubunnissa Begum was the absolute owner of the suit land and after her death, being the sole heir, she became entitled to it and she filed the suit to recover possession or in the alternative for compensation. The petitioners filed the petition to implead them alleging that during the lifetime of Mahabubunnisa Begum they entered into an agreement of sale in the first instance for Ac. 112-00 at the rate of Rs.5,000.00 per acre under an agreement dated 18-2-1968 and paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards earnest money. When they went to the land and tried to localise it, they fund it to be in the possession of Praga Tools Corporation. When Praga Tools Corporation claimed the land to be the Government property, they approached the Government. The Government after enquiry decided that it is not their property, but it was the property of the mother of the plaintiff. On 11-2-1971 a fresh agreement cancelling the earlier agreement was entered into by them with the plaintiff who was the general power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs mother for a sum of Rs.7,50,000.00. Apart from the amount of Rs.75,000.00 which was paid under the earlier agreement from 1971 to 1973 further sums amounting to Rs.8,200.00 were also paid, the last payment being on 20-7-1973. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1974 and therefore they are necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff has admitted in two agreements and the receipt of a total sum of Rs.82,000.00 under agreements. But according to her, the first petitioner is a mere nominee and benamidar for the second petitioner. One Nagabhusan Rao is a friend and partner of the second petitioner. That Nagabhusana Rao was arrested in connection with cheating and misappropriation of public funds sometime in 1972 or 1973 and in that connection all the records of the said Nagabhusan Rao were seized by the Police. The second petitioner represented to her husband that all the records Nagasbhushan Rao were seized by the police and since his partner is involved in the cheating case all the agreements and money receipts were not available with him and also he is in serious trouble with reference to income-tax and criminal matters and since he does not have the necessary money and capacity he is not willing to pursue the matter and accordingly requested her husband after the expiry of her mother to cancel the agreement and refund the amount received under the agreements. Her husband with great difficulty by disposing of a tourist bus which he was running then and his other assets and also by raising loans paid away to the 2nd petitioner a total sum of Rs.82,000.00 on 16-11-1973 towards refund of the moneys received under the agreements and he passed a receipt. In support of her case, the plaintiff also filed a photo-state copy of the receipt. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on the ground that the agreements were said to have been seized by the Police from the second petitioners partner Nagabhushan Rao, the same were not returned to her husband and it was so mentioned in the receipt.

(2.) Thus according to the plaintiff there is no longer any subsisting agreement of sale with regard to the suit land and the agreements entered into by her mother was cancelled.

(3.) The Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, on these facts did not think it proper to add the petitioners as defendants to the suit and accordingly dismissed their petition. It is against that order this revision is directed.