IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 632 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the Order dt. 08.02.2024 passed in I. No. 328 of 2022 in I.A. No. 285 of 2021 in O.S. No. 141 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal (Senior Division) Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, the above named petitioners prefer this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition. Between: 1. Khareedu Anjaneyulu, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 58 years, R/o. Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. 2. Khareedu Rosaiah, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 53 years, R/o Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. 3. Khareedu Seetharamaiah, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 48 years, R/o Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. 4. Khareedu Varaiah, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 42 years, R/o Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. 5. Khareedu Veeraiah, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 38 years, R/o Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. 6. Khareedu Sai Babu, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 35 years, R/o Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. ... Petitioners/3 Parties AND 1. Kotari Seetharavamma, W/o. Subba Rao, aged 52ryears, Occ.Cultivation, R/o Dintenampadu Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. 2. Khareedu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Venkateswarlu, aged 59 years, R/o Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Chilakaluripet, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. 3. Ambati Seetaravamma (Khareedu Seetharavamma), D/o Venkateswarlu, W/o. Ambati Sambasiva Rao, (but not Srinivasa Rao), aged 60 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. 4. As a Renukamma, W/o Subba Rao, aged 45 years, Occ Cultivation R/o Kunkalagunta Village, Nakarikallu Mandal, Palnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. ^ Khareedu Basavamma (Died), . ' - -6.^ khareedu Nagaranitha, W/o. Late Venkaiah (g) Venkateswarlu, S/o Late Koteswara Rao, aged 32 years, R/o Unnava Village, Yadlapadu Mandal, l^alnadu District, Erstwhile Guntur District. W khareedu Hemsai, S/o. Late Venkaiah @ Venkateswarlu, aged 14 years, : being Minor, rep. by his mother/next friend/naturat-guardian R6 • 8. Khareedu Lokesh, S/o Late Venkaiah @ Venkateswarlu, aged 10 years, being minor, rep., by his mother/next friend/ Natural Guardian- R6. ...RESPONDENTS/3^'' Parties lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in I.A No. 285 of 2021 in O S. No. 141 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Learned PrI (Senior Division) Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. DIVYATHEJA GADIKOTA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SR K SIMHACHALAM Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4: SRI Y V KALYANA CHAKRAVARTHY The Court made the following: ORDER / ^ - APHC010121232024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 632/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Khareedu Anjaneyulu and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Kotari Seetharavamma and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DIVYATHEJA GADIKOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. YADLAPALLI VENKATA KALYANA CHAKRAVARTHY 2.GHANTASRIDHAR 3.SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA The Court made the following: rt' 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.632 of 2024 % ORDER: This revision petition is preferred by the petitioners/third parties challenging the order, dated 08.02.2024, dismissing I.A.No.328 of 2022 in I.A.No.285 of 2021 in O.S.No.141 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, filed under Order I, rule 10 CPC to add them as proper and necessary parties to the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2009 as D5 to DIO and R6 to R8 as Dll to D13 even after passing preliminary decree. Heard Sri Divyatheja Gadikota, learned counsel for the petitioners/third parties, Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Sri Karukola Simhachalam, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Y.V.Kalyana Chakravaiihy, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4. The respondent No.5 died. 2. th The case of the petitioners, as stated in the affidavit of the 5 petitioner filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.328 of 2022, in brief, is as follows: 3. The revision petitioners are brothers. The respondent No.6 is wife of the other brother of the petitioners, by name, Venkaiah, who is no more, and respondents No.7 & 8 are children of Venkaiah through respondent No.6. All the revision petitioners are third parties to the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2009 as well as I.A.No.285 of 2021. a. The suit in O.S.No.141 of 2009 was filed for partition of the four items of the suit schedule property. I.A.No.285 of 2021 was filed for passing final decree. Item No.4 of the suit schedule property is the joint property of two brothers, i) Khareedu Venkateswarlu and ii) Khareedu Koteswara Rao. The children of Khareedu Venkateswarlu are parties to b. 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.632 of 2024 ' the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2009 and are prosecuting the suit even for total property of item No.4. The revision petitioners have been paying the property tax for item No.4 for the share of their father, Khareedu Their house is on the eastern side whereas the western half belongs to the parties to the suit. The parties to the suit have not been in possession and enjoyment of the eastern half portion of the house, which is in item No.4 of the suit schedule property, but they are claiming the relief even in respect of the eastern portion. Koteswara Rao. O.S.No.331 of 2018 was filed by Pidikiti Vijayalakshmi before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, against the sole defendant, Ambati Seetharavamma. Khareedu Srinivasa Rao who is the 1®* defendant in O.S.No.141 of 2009 filed A.S.No.31 of 2018 before XIII Additional District Court, Narasaraopet. The counsel who represented the plaintiff in O.S.No.331 of 2018 also represented the father of the third parties in A.S.No.31 of 2018. The revision petitioners being the children of Koteswara Rao have been looking after the lis in A.S.No.31 of 2018. The father of the plaintiff got the property in partition with his brother and the trial Court also held that such partition was not proved and the existence of the share of the father of the petitioners is evident from the boundary referred in the agreement of sale relied on by the petitioners and therefore, they vehemently contended that their property is undivided and part of item No.4 of the suit schedule property is their property. The parties in O.S.No.141 of 2009 are claiming the relief in respect of the property of the father of the revision petitioners, i.e., eastern portion of item No.4 of the suit schedule property. The said property belongs to the revision petitioners and respondents 6 to 8 herein. Hence, this application has been filed to add them as proper and necessary parties to the suit in O.S.No.141 of 2009. c. 4 BSBJ C.R.P.No.632 of 2024 The respondent filed counter opposing the petition and stating 4. as follows: The suit in O.S No.141 of 2009 was filed seeking partition. Preliminary decree was granted in the said suit. I.A.No.285 of 2021 was filed to grant a final decree. The property covered under the preliminary decree is the absolute property of the parties to the preliminary decree having joint rights as per the shares allotted to them. Item No.4 of the preliminary decree is not the property totally held by the parties and the petitioners have got joint shares over half of the same. The parties to O.S^No.141 of 2009 are co-sharers to the exclusion of anybody in respect of all the items shown. The petitioners cannot be impleaded as parties as their interest cannot be protected in the preliminary decree. The remedy of the petitioners is only by way of a separate suit but not by way of this application under Order I, rule 10 CPC. The petition is liable to be dismissed. a. The 2"^^ respondent filed counter stating as follows: b. Most of the allegations in the affidavit are not true. Unless the petitioners who are third parties are permitted to come on record, they cannot seek any relief. This respondent preferred appeal in A.S.No.77 of 2012 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, challenging the preliminary decree. The said appeal was allowed confirming the preliminary decree and as such, a second appeal in S.A.No.415 of 2019 was preferred. Khareedu Koteswara Rao filed O.S.No.312 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, basing on a forged and fabricated Will, dated 27.03.1982. As the said suit was decreed, this respondent preferred appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional '\ \ 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.632 of 2024 District Judge, Narasaraopet. The petitioners did not file any document of title pertaining to item No.4 of the preliminary decree. The tax receipts do not confer any title. The petition is liable to be dismissed. The main ground for seeking impleadment by the revision petitioners is that they came to know about inclusion of their property in item No.4 of the suit schedule property/preliminary decree only before filing of the petition. The petition is opposed. 5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the agreement of sale does not confer any interest in the property as a regular sale deed is required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/third parties preferred this revision petition. 7. It is mainly contended that an agreement of sale was relied on as a piece of evidence to indicate that one of the boundaries shown in the said agreement of sale in relation to the property of the neighbor shows the name of the father of the petitioners and that the petitioners have relied on the agreement of sale to establish their title over part of the property covered by item No.4 of the suit schedule property. Further, they contended that so long as the final decree is not passed, the suit for partition is considered to be pending and any number of preliminary decrees can be passed in a suit for partition and therefore, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to get themselves impleaded and challenge partition of item No.4 of the suit schedule property. 8. r 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No.632 of 2024 9. In this regard, they placed reliance on the decision of Madurai bench of Madras High Court in S.Pitchai Vs. Ponnammaf wherein in a suit for partition, after passing the preliminary decree and during the pendency of petition for passing of final decree, an application was filed to implead the petitioner as party to the final decree petition. Since the trial Court dismissed the petition, the matter went up to the High Court by the unsuccessful petitioner. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Phoolchand Vs. Gopal LaP, it was observed that a suit for partition is pending till a final decree is passed and that there should be a finality to the final decree passed by the Court and therefore, all the disputes must be adjudicated well before passing the final decree and so, the trial Court is at liberty to entertain application from a newly impleaded party to the final decree petition for amendment of the preliminary decree, notwithstanding the fact that he was impleaded only in the final decree petition. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff contended that the petitioners who are third parties to the suit claiming title in the property which is subject of the suit for partition cannot be permitted to be impleaded in the final decree proceedings as the proceedings in the preliminary decree have become final and the proceedings that ought to have been taken during the pendency of the preliminary decree cannot be taken up in the final decree proceedings as they are separate stages of a single suit but which attains finality on conclusion, particularly in view of section 97 CPC which prohibits changes to preliminary decree in appeal against final decree, further contended that only if certain changes came into existence 10. It is 'AIR 2017 MADRAS 281 'AIR 1967 SC 1470 7 BSBJ C.R.P.No.632 of 2024 subsequent to passing the preliminary decree, a party can be impleaded or shares can be altered even after passing the preliminary decree but not otherwise only to claim right over the property which is subject of the preliminary decree. 11. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sadar Surjeet Singh Vs. Juguna Bai (since died) and others^ wherein also the decision of the Supreme Court in Phoolchand (supra) was considered besides other decisions of the Supreme Court such as SS Reddy V.Narayan Reddy'* and held that subsequent event can be taken into consideration while working out the preliminary decree into the shape of final decree. But when the preliminary decree attained finality, it would not be reopened due to impleadment of party. In that case, suit for partition was filed and a preliminary decree was passed. Thereafter, appeal against final decree was filed and withdrawn by the plaintiff. Later, an application was filed for passing final decree. Then, Nima Kaur, the foster daughter of Sardar Santh Singh, filed petition under Order I, rule 10 CPC for impleading her as 4*^^ defendant claiming herself to be foster daughter of Sardar Santh Singh in view of the settlement deed, dated 30.12.1978, and claiming 1/3'^'* share in the property. In that context, the Supreme Court upheld the legal proposition that subsequent events after passing the preliminary decree such as change of law or matters which change the share of the parties can be taken into account. But, in that case since it was not of subsequent event or change of law, the remedy available to Nima Kaur was to file a separate suit. '2017(4) RCR (civil) 695 ^(1991) 3 see 647 V 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.632 of 2024 12. In the present case also, the petitioners cannot be allowed to be made as parties to the final decree petition in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sardar Surjeet Singh (supra), as the ground for impleading is not a subsequent event or change of law. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 13. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /?' ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet. 2. One CC to Sri Divyatheja Gadikota, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ghanta Sridhar, Advocate [OPUCj^ 4. One CC to Sri K.Simhachalam, Advocate.[OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Kalyana Chakravarthy, Advocate.[OPUC] 6. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Three CD Copies Pmg vna HIGH COURT DATED: 14/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.632 of 2024 2 8 FEB 2025 ^ . Current Section ^ X^esPATCH^ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISIONT»ETITION WITHOUT COSTS