Or.1, rule 10 C.P.C - REVISION allowed - suit for Declaration of Title basing on Sale Deed - the petitioners relatives of one of the defendant No.26 claimed a right in the suit schedule property as it is their Mathruka Property - Except Defendant No.25 , all other defendants not opposed - Trial court dismissed the I.A. - Their Lordships held that the Court is empowered to strike out or add parties and such power has to be exercised in a judicious manner - Curiously, respondent Nos.1 to 24/plaintiffs have not opposed the application of the petitioners, except respondent No.25-Respondent No.25 has not explained as to how his interest will be affected by the presence of the petitioners-The petitioners claim interest over the property and it is their pleaded case that if declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property is granted in favour of the plaintiffs, their interests will suffer. -Irrespective of the merits of the claim of the petitioners, their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, in that, the necessity for them to file a separate suit can be obviated if the present suit is decided in their presence. - Revision allowed - 2015 Telangana & A.P MSKLAWREPORTS



Though notices have not been served on some of the
respondents, considering the fact that none of the unserved
respondents have opposed the application of the petitioners for
their impleadment in the suit before the lower Court, non-service of
notices on them will not affect their interests.

The
petitioners, who are related to respondent No.26, filed I.A.No.513 of
2011 for their impleadment on the ground that the property sold by
respondent No.26 to respondent No.25 is the mathruka property
and that they have also shares in the said property.  
Respondent No.25 alone has contested the said application. 
By the order under
revision, the lower Court has dismissed I.A.No.513 of 2011. 

Under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court is empowered to
strike out or add parties and such power has to be exercised in a
judicious manner.
The petitioners claim interest over the property
and it is their pleaded case that if declaration of title in respect of
the suit schedule property is granted in favour of the plaintiffs, their
interests will suffer.
 Irrespective of the merits of the claim of the
petitioners, their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, in that, the necessity for them to file a separate suit
can be obviated if the present suit is decided in their presence.

Curiously, respondent Nos.1 to 24/plaintiffs have not opposed the
application of the petitioners, while respondent No.25 who alone is
the contesting defendant has opposed the said application.
Respondent No.25 has not explained as to how his interest will be
affected by the presence of the petitioners.

The lower Court has
failed to consider the application of the petitioners from proper
perspective and adopted a lopsided reasoning in dismissing the
application of the petitioners.
      For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of the lower
Court is set aside and I.A.No.513 of 2011 is allowed.  The civil revision
petition is accordingly allowed.2015 Telangana & A.P MSKLAWREPORTS

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.