Pulipaka Kameswari And Others vs Peta Lakshmi Kumari And Others

R Raghunandan Rao, J

The predecessors of the petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.318 of 2007 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tenali, for partition of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant in the suit claimed absolute ownership over the suit schedule property and denied the claims of the petitioners herein.

A preliminary decree was passed on 04.06.2012 holding that the 1st defendant in the suit did not have absolute rights over the entire property and that the petitioners herein are also entitled to a share of the said property.

It appears that the 1st defendant in the said suit had entered into an agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney, which was registered, with one Sri P. Pitchaiah, who was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the suit.

The 1st defendant in the suit passed away during the pendency of the suit and the defendants 6 to 9 were added as his legal heirs, by an order dated 16.12.2008.

The petitioners herein had filed I.A.No.194 of 2023, for passing of final decree. At that stage, the respondents 1 to 3 herein moved I.A.No.661 of 2023 in I.A.No.194 of 2023 for impleading them as defendants in the suit, on the ground that they were the legal heirs of late Sri P. Pitchaih, who was arrayed as defendant No.2, in the suit, on the ground that the deceased-1st defendant had entered into agreement of sale with him.

This application was allowed by the trial Court despite resistance by the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 27.04.2024, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present civil revision petition.

Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the respondents 1 to 3 cannot be impleaded in as much as their claim arises out of an agreement of sale. He would submit that an agreement of sale does not give rise to any right or claim over the property and as such, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot be impleaded into the suit. He would further submit that impleding the respondents 1 to 3 would cause impediment in passing of the final decree and in the division of property by metes and bounds. He would further submit that the petitioners apprehend that the presence of respondents 1 to 3 in the suit, would cause immense difficulties for the petitioners as there is every possibility of the respondents 1 to 3 being favoured in the division of the property.

Respondents 1 to 3 herein are seeking to implead themselves on the ground that they are the legal representatives of the deceased-2nd defendant. Further, the trial Court, after observing that an agreement of sale would not give any right or claim over the property, had also taken the view that both the 1st defendant as well as his legal heirs, namely defendants 6 to 9 in the suit, had admitted the execution of an agreement of sale with the deceased-2nd defendant in the suit and that any share falling to the deceased-1st defendant could be adjusted against the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 herein.

In the aforesaid circumstances, especially in view of the fact that late Sri P. Pitchaih the agreement holder had already been made a defendant in the suit, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.