Karra Varsha vs Sunke Prabhakar And 3 Others

This revision is filed challenging the order dated 26.06.2019 in I.A.No.141 of 2019 in O.S.No.45 of 2012 passed by the I Additional District Judge,

Karimnagar, whereunder an application filed by the petitioner â€" third party seeking impleadment as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.45 of 2012 was

dismissed.

The suit O.S.No.45 of 2012 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for declaration of title and recovery

of possession in respect of property admeasuring 252 sq. yards in Sy.No.1317/A situated at Vavilalpally locality of Karimnagar Town.

The petitioner filed the impleadment application stating that she purchased the suit property from Penchala Jaggaiah/defendant No.1 â€" respondent

No.3 herein under registered sale deed bearing document No.9386 of 2017 dated 17.10.2017 for a sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-. In pursuance

thereof, possession was delivered to her and she is paying property tax. She came to know that the vendor has given evidence before the Court below

that he has not sold the house to the petitioner at any point of time, which shows that her vendor has not properly contested the suit and therefore, to

protect her rights she seeks to implead herself, being necessary and proper party.

The application for impleadment was opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintffs stating that legal notice dated 07.11.2017 was issued to the

petitioner not to purchase the suit schedule property and there was no reply to the legal notice. The petitioner married the grandson of the defendant

No.1 and she became a family member of the defendant No.1. The petitioner has not paid the sale consideration. The alleged sale deed is a created

document for the purpose of bank loan and to create multiple litigations over the said property. It is not stated as to how the petitioner received

information about the pendency of the suit. Petitioner, who is a pendente lite purchaser, cannot be held to be a holder of legally enforceable right. The

impleadment petition is filed on the instructions of the defendant No.1. The implead application is collusive and is filed to delay the trial of the suit.

The Court below dismissed the application, under the impugned order, recording a finding that the petitioner received a legal notice dated

07.11.2017, though the sale deed is executed earlier to the legal notice i.e. 17.10.2017. The petitioner has not taken appropriate steps to come on

record by filing a petition in the year 2017 itself, but chose to file a petition after examination of the defendant No.1, as D.W.1. It is not stated as to

who informed the petitioner herein that D.W.1 has denied execution of the sale deed in her favour. The Court below referred to the judgments of this

Court in YEDDULA SATHEESH KUMAR REDDY v. SANKIREDDY BAKKIREDDY ASEERVAD KUMAR REDDY [2016 (5) ALT 36] and

PANNALA RENUKA v. KAVALI (RAJAMOUNI) VENKATAIAH [2006 (6) ALD 761] and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a

pendente lite purchaser and cannot be treated as an independent holder of any legally enforceable right and not a proper and necessary party to be

added as defendant No.3 in the suit.

Ms. Chithralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there was no injunction order granted by the Court below. Thus, the sale of the

suit property by the defendant No.1 was not prohibited. The petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser, is entitled to come on record to protect her

interest. Even if the petitioner is a pendente lite purchaser, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, as the petitioner is claiming through the

defendant No.1. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in THOMSON PRESS (INDIA)

LIMITED v. NANAK BUILDERS AND INVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED (2013) 5 SCC 397.

Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, submitted that the petitioner purchased the suit property having knowledge of pendency

of the suit. The notice dated 07.11.2017 was issued to the petitioner but immediately thereafter she did not make any efforts to get herself impleaded.

The sale deed is created for defeating the rights of the plaintiffs. The petitioner being pendente lite purchaser does not have any right to come on

record as the defendant.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, this Court is of the

opinion that the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. The petitioner, admittedly, is a pendente lite

purchaser. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LIMITED’s case (1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of

the present case. In the said case, the Supreme Court was dealing with an application for impleadment filed by a subsequent purchaser in a specific

performance suit. On facts, the Supreme Court held that if a purchaser pendente lite is not made a party to the pending suit, there may be a situation

where transferor pendente lite may not defend the title properly as he has no interest remaining, or may collude with the plaintiff in which case interest

of the purchaser pendente lite will be ignored.

Though the petitioner claims to have purchased the suit property in the year 2017, having received the notice dated 07.11.2017 from the plaintiffs,

she did not choose to respond. The sale deed of the petitioner is hit by doctrine of lis pendense under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The

suit is posted for further evidence of the defendants as the evidence of the plaintiffs is closed and D.W.1 has been examined. The suit is filed in the

year 2012 and impleadment application is filed in the year 2019. The petitioner has not made out good grounds to implead herself as party defendant.

Further, the averment that her vendor is not properly contesting the suit does not appear to be genuine, in the light of the assertion of the plaintiffs that

the petitioner married the grandson of the defendant No.1 and now she is the family member of the defendant No.1. This Court is of the opinion that if

the petitioner is permitted to come on record, it will cause prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs. There are no merits in the revision.

The civil revision petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.