Non - joinder of necessary party = petitioner is having preferential right in view of the existing lease, the sale itself is illegal, therefore, he filed another A.T.C. in A.T.C.No.8 of 2010 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956- When it is the case of respondents that the petition schedule property was already sold in favour of one Velugula Bhavani by registered sale deed, without impleading such vendee, petitioner cannot seek any directions for deposit of maktha. In view of the reasons assigned by the Court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.756 of 2013

Dated: 15.03.2013

Between:

Gollapalli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana.

…..Petitioner

And


Thota Kantham & another.

…..Respondents

































HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.756 of 2013
ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2013, passed in I.A.No.181 of 2011 in ATC.No.4 of 2010 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram,.
The petitioner is applicant in ATC.No.4 of 2010, which is filed under A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, to declare him as cultivating tenant and to grant consequential injunction.  
It is the case of the petitioner that the petition schedule property is leased out orally on an annual maktha of Rs.4,500/-.  Pending the main application, he filed I.A.No.181 of 2011 under Section 151 CPC, to permit him to deposit the maktha amount of Rs.4,500/- in the Court.  In the aforesaid application, it was the case of respondents that the petition schedule property was already sold away in favor of one Velugula Bhavani by executing a registered sale deed.  It is stated that as they are not owners of the petition schedule property, they sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner for deposit of maktha.
In this revision, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as the petitioner is having preferential right in view of the existing lease, the sale itself is illegal, therefore, he filed another A.T.C. in A.T.C.No.8 of 2010 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 It is submitted that the Court below ought to have allowed the application by permitting the petitioner to deposit the maktha.
Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, I have also perused the material on record.
When it is the case of respondents that the petition schedule property was already sold in favour of one Velugula Bhavani by registered sale deed, without impleading such vendee, petitioner cannot seek any directions for deposit of maktha.  In view of the reasons assigned by the Court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.  
However, as the application for deposit of maktha is dismissed on the ground that the purchaser of petition schedule property i.e. Velugula Bhavani is not made party, petitioner is at liberty to take steps for impleadment of said purchaser.  
No costs.
As a sequel, CRP.MP.Nos.1029 & 1030 of 2013 stand closed. 

______________________
                                            R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
15th March 2013
ajr

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515