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

15^th March 2013

ajr