PENCHALA DEVENDER Vs. BANDARU PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order, dtd. 25/1/2019 passed in I.A.No.583 of 2018 in O.S.No.947 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, wherein the application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. to implead the petitioner therein as defendant No.7 was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed O.S.No.947 of 2012 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their followers and agents etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and ownership of the revision petitioner over suit schedule property and also restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 therein from alienating and executing the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 therein. During pendency of the said suit, an I.A.No.583 of 2018 which is the subject matter of the present revision is filed by respondent No.1 herein to implead him as defendant No.7 in the suit and for consequential amendment of the plaint. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that initially the suit schedule property was purchased by the revision petitioner along with one Mr. Chenda Manohar and respondent No.1 herein from Bandaru Venkateshwarlu and others. Further there was an oral agreement and mutual understanding between them which is agreed to abide by them and inspite of purchasing the said property by all of them the sale deeds were registered in the name of Mr. Chenda Manohar and the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner and Mr. Chenda Manohar sold away the said lands and the revision petitioner, respondent No.1 and Mr.Chenda Manohar have apportioned the sale proceedings without any disturbances. It is further stated that there were negotiations and the said negotiations were reduced in writing and the revision petitioner, respondent No.1 signed on the said document and in furtherance of the said document, another document was also executed on 28/2/2017. It is further stated that in the panchayath, which was held on 28/2/2017, decided that out of Ac.16.05 guntas, the revision petitioner and Mr.Chenda Manohar has sold away the land to an extent of Acs.10.00gts., to Bhavathi Educational Society and the remaining land to an extent of Acs.6.05gts. is available at that time and as such, it is decided that the revision petitioner is entitled to two shares i.e., Acs.4.03 guntas and respondent No.1 is entitled to one share i.e., Ac.2.02 guntas. It is further stated that the revision petitioner, without giving any information and knowledge of respondent No.1, had sold away the land to an extent of Ac.2.25 gts., in Sy.No.125/2 including property of the petitioner to Suchitra Township through registered sale deed bearing document No.3601 of 2017, dtd. 17/3/2017. It is further stated that the revision petitioner had sold away excess land Ac.2.02 gts., in Sy.No.124/2 which is belong to the petitioner, therefore, he prayed to implead him as defendant No.7 in the suit.

(3.) The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the suit is filed for permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule land in Sy.No.124/2 to an extent of Ac.2.25 gts., of Thimmapur Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District from Mr. Bandaru Venkateshwarlu under agreement of Sale-cum-GPA vide document No.3917 of 2008, dtd. 30/7/2008 but respondent No.1 herein created a false story and intending to come on record without any basis and prayed to dismiss the petition.