CHINTHALA AJAY REDDY Vs. CHINTHALA VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order dismissing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to implead the petitioner as the 5th defendant in the suit. The averments in the petition are that the petitioner is the adopted son of late Chinthala Venkata Narsimha Reddy, who had no male issues. It is stated that the said Chinthala Venkata Narsimha Reddy and his wife Smt. Laxmamma have adopted him on 15-5-1987 and that they have executed a registered Adoption Deed on the same day treating him as their son and conferring all their rights and benefits of a natural son, on him. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit -OS 8 of 1986 seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale entered into with late Chinthala Venkata Narsimha Reddy. The petitioner claims, as the adoptive son he has every right to get himself impleaded in the suit and that the lower Court erroneously dismissed his application. The 3rd respondent filed counter on her behalf and also on behalf of the 2fid respondent, opposing this application. It is her contention that their father late Venkata Narsimha Reddy had no male issues and that he had three daughters who are respondents 3, 4 and 5 herein. Even during his life time, he has divided the property into three shares way back in 1970. By that time, it is stated, the 5th respondent was not married and hence the final partition was deferred. Even after the marriage of the 5th respondent, late Chinthala Venkata Narsimha Reddy (2nd respondent herein) was looking after the entire joint family property, which is ancestral. By 1983, their father became very old and taking advantage of his old age the 1st respondent, who is the son of the paternal uncle of respondents 3, 4 and 5, has managed to get an agreement of sale for a larger extent of the property and filed OS. 8 of 1986 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale. During the pendency of the suit, Chinthala Venkata Narsimha Reddy died and also his wife Laxmamma died. The present petitioner, who claims to be the adoptive son, did not take steps to come on record as legal representative even though the adoption has taken place in 1987. Having failed to come on record as a legal representative, it is not open to him now to get himself impleaded by filing the present petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the previous order of the High Court in CRP Nos.5184 and 5201 of 1994 directing the trial Court to decide the issue on merits. In accordance with the direction of the High Court the trial Court decided the matter on merits. I do not find that the order of this Court has not been complied with by the trial Court.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in Morala Anjaiah v. Kondagunta Venkateswarlu (Died) and others, 1993 (1) ALT 57. The Division Bench held as follows: