NARAYANA REDDY V. Vs. ANI NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 13.12.2007, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 4040 of 2007 in O.S. No. 1500 of 2002, filed by the petitioner seeking to get himself impleaded as plaintiff No.2 in the suit and all interlocutory applications, on the ground that he is a proper and necessary party, and permit necessary amendments.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the present application seeking to implead himself as plaintiff No.2 inter alia stating that the plaintiff originally filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant - respondent No.2 with respect to the suit schedule property on 11.10.2002 and continued to prosecute the same. That the plaintiff - respondent No. 1, is a senior citizen aged about 75 years and is now permanently settled in Chennai. He states that he had advanced hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiff - respondent No.1, which she agreed to repay after sale of the suit schedule property. That thereafter, she proposed and agreed to sell to the suit schedule property to him for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. Accepting the said proposal, the petitioner states that he paid to the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on 04.09.2006 by way of demand draft, and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash on 05.09.2006, and that having received the said amounts, the plaintiff - respondent No. 1, executed an agreement of sale - cum - general power of attorney dated 05.09.2006 in favour his. He further states that the plaintiff agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- at the time of execution of registered sale deed. On 23.01.2007, the petitioner states that he paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 by way of demand draft, and the plaintiff - respondent No.1 having encashed the same, executed registered sale deed in his favour on 25.01.2007. That the Municipality has also mutated his name in the records vide proceedings dated 02.02.2007, and since then he is paying the municipal taxes, and that he had also obtained municipal permission for construction of a building, and accordingly constructed a building in the suit schedule property.

(3.) THE plaintiff, who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 did not file counter.