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

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more