KODURU GOWTHAM REDDY Vs. KODURU MAHESHWAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by M/s.Prime Properties-petitioner- plaintiff herein aggrieved by the order dtd. 28/12/2021 passed in I.A.No.431 of 2021 in O.S.No.900 of 2001 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioners therein seeking to implead as Defendant Nos.7 and 8 is allowed.

(2.) The suit O.S.No.900 of 2001 was filed by the revision petitioner seeking for cancellation of sale deed dtd. 27/12/1991 vide Document No.8985 of 1992, for cancellation of the decree dtd. 25/4/1984 in O.S.No.152 of 1984 and for permanent injunction. Initially, the suit was filed against the third respondent herein and subsequently the other respondent No.3 and subsequently the other respondents were impleaded as defendants. The revision petitioner herein also filed O.S.No.898, 899 and 901 of 2001 for the similar reliefs in respect of other schedule properties. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in all the above four suits. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein would state that they purchased Plot bearing Nos.2B and 2C through a registered sale deeds vide Document No.423 of 1995 dtd. 31/1/1995 and therefore filed implead applications in all the above suits. In fact, they are claiming their rights through false and fabricated sale deed, which is under challenge in O.S.No.900 of 2001 though they have knowledge of the same but at the instance of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 only they filed the present implead application and the trial Court erroneously allowed it contrary to the provisions of law. In fact, there are several litigations between the petitioner herein and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and members of the third respondent society. The petitioner herein would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the following directions for disposal of O.S.No.898 of 2001 within six months.

(3.) The petitioner would also submit that Respondent No.3 society without having any right and title over the schedule property, executed many sale deeds intentionally to defeat the directions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the individual implead petitions are being filing from time to time only to derail the proceedings and to defeat the legitimate right of the petitioner and if it is not curtailed, they may likely to file petitions in batches and it results in gross miscarriage of justice. The petitioner would further contend that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suits in O.S.Nos.898, 899. 900 and 901 of 2001 and as such their implead applications ought to have been dismissed. The petitioner would also contend that the trial Court lost sight of the fact that Respondent No.3, predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, is already party to the suits and contesting the same. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all four suits claiming that they own two plots without specifying in which suit their claim falls. The total extent of four suits is Ac.167.00 gunts in Sy.No.1007 of Kukatpally Village and Mandal and the claim of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is only in respect of 2000 square yards and the aforestated applications were filed after twenty years of knowledge of pendency of the suits. Though they are the members of the Society, they do not have any independent claim over the property. The suit is filed for cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of Respondent No.3. As Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are claiming rights through Respondent No.3, they cannot be impleaded when Respondent No.3 is actively contesting the suit, and therefore, sought to set aside the order under challenge.