RAGHAVARATNAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relating to these two Revision Petitions are identical. In both the Revision Petitions the common order of the District Judge, Waran- gal, in I A. 130/83 in O.P. 32/83 and LA. Nos. 120 & 125/83 in O.P. 26/83 is assailed. Two Revision Petitions were filed as the I.As. disposed of by the learned District Judge related to two separate O.Ps. It will be convenient to dispose of these two Revision Petitions by a common Judgment.

(2.) Land admeasuring about 18 acres in old Survey No. 665 of Hanamkonda was claimed to have been assigned in favour of K. Mallayya and sons in 1335 fasli. K. Ramayya, son of Mallayya, sold the aforementioned land in favour of D Narasimha Swamy under two registered sale deeds dated 22-7-1961 and 30-1-1964. Narasimha Swamy, in turn, sold 556 square yards in favour of petitioner No. 1, Ac. 3-35 guntas in favour of petitioner No. 2 and Ac. 10-02 guntas in favour of petitioner No. 3. It is claimed that the sales were effected through sale deeds executed and registered in the years 1965 and 1966. It is also claimed that the three petitioners were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land.

(3.) In 1974 the petitioners were sought to be evicted from the land by taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. On receipt of a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, the petitioners filed O.S. 78/74 on the file of the District Judge, Warangal, for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment by the petitioners of the suit land. The suit was later on transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and was re-numbered as O.S. 108/80. During the concluding stages of trial in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, one G. Ramulu filed LA. 309/81 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. claiming that he should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit on the ground that the suit land was Government land and himself and others applied for allotment of the suit land by way of house sites and he was, therefore, a necessary party to the suit. The application of Ramulu was opposed by the petitioners. It is stated that the Government also opposed the application of Ramulu for being impleaded as a necessary party defendant. On 23-11-1982 the application of Ramulu was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge.