IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT AMARAVATI JANUARY the honourable SRI JUSTICE CIVIL revision pftiTIQN no- nyapathy vijay 978 OF 2090 Civil Revision Petition ^ Article 227 of the Constitution against order and decree Dt. 4/3/2020 No. 37/2014 of India, passed in lA NO. 106 /2020 IN OS on the file of II Additional District Judge Hindupuram. Between: 1. K Fayaz Khan, S/o. K Ameer Khan,, D No. 1-11-7, Abad Peta, Hindupuram. 2. M V Thygaraju, S/o. M Pitchaiah, ' years, D No. 1-1-75, Abadpet, Hindupuram. Aged 47 years, Occ; Business . R/o. Christian, Lecture, Aged about 56 -.Petitioners/Petltioners/Proposed Party AND 1- Syed Baba Fakruddin, r Dhanka Sab Street, Hindupuram. 2. Govindappa, Hindupuram. S/o. Late S K Dasthagir Sab R/o. D No. 16-86, S/o. Adeppa, R/o. D.No.26-4-410 Melapuram, ...Respondent/Respondents/Plaintiffs 3. RahamathullaSait, S/o. Late BaiMahmmadlshakSait, R/o. D No. 6-5-6, RIy. Station Road, Hindupuram. 4. B Saifulla, S/0. Late Ibrahim Sab, R/o. D No. 2-1-194, Mukkidipeta, Hindupuram. 5. B Kaizer, S/o. B. AhammadSaith Transport Business, D No. 2-1-194 '■* .Mukkidipeta, Hindupuram. 6. B Farooq, S/o. Late P KhazaMohiddin, D No. 6-5-6, RIy. Station Road Hindupuram. 7. B Igbal, S/O. Late KhazaMohiddin, D No. 6-5-6, RIy. Station Road, Hindupuram. 8. Shaifiulla, W/o. Dasthagir Sab, R/o. D No. 29-1-40, KotnurVillage, Hindupuram. 9. Ahammad, S/o. Late Dasthagiri Sab, R/o. D No. 29-1-40, Kotnur Village, Hindupuram. 10. Rafiulla, S/o. Late Dasthagiri Sab, Rio. D No. 29-1-40, Kotnur Village, Hindupuram. 11. Smt Hyath Bee, W/o. Late Dasthagiri D No. 29.1-41, Kotnur Village, Hindupuram. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants 1 to 9 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 of 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 the OS No.37/2014 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Hindupuram. I Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T.C. KRISHNAN Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.K. RAJ KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER: 1 r- f APHC010203922020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 978/2020 Between; ...PETITIONER(S) K Fayaz Khan and Others AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Syed Baba Fakruddin and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KALE VIJAYA RAJU 2.M KRAJ KUMAR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No;978/2020 ORDER; The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 04.03.2020 in I.A.No.106 of 2020 in O.S.No.37 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The Petitioners are the 3”^^ parties. O.S.No.37 of 2014 was filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 13 for 2. declaration of title and for consequential injunction and also sought for declaration that the Gift Deeds dated 29.08.2011 executed by the Defendant No.9 in favour of Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 with regard to the Suit Schedule Property vide document No.9292/2011 as null and void and are not binding on the Plaintiffs. In the course of suit, the Petitioners filed the above application seeking to implead themselves in the suit as Defendant Nos. 10 and 11. 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that the legal heirs of Basha Sab Nymath Sab and Abdul Sab sold the Suit Schedule Property on 26.03.2019 in favour of the Petitioner No.1 under registered document No.7570/2019, dated 26.03.2019. As they have a right, title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property, the Petitioners sought to come on re-car.d. 3 The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that 4. the Petitioners did not state that the vendors under Sale Deed are the legal heirs of the rightful owners of the schedule property. The further reason for dismissal was that the Petitioners should file a separate suit against their vendors to determine their right over the Schedule Property. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned 5. counsel for the Respondents. It is not explained in the affidavit as to how the vendors of the 6. Unless the Petitioners are related to the Defendants in the suit. Petitioners claim to have purchased the schedule property through the Defendants or their predecessors in title, in this suit, it would not be appropriate for the Petitioners to come on record to establish their right and title over the Schedule Property as they are neither proper or necessary parties to the suit. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the 7. order passed by the trial Court. The Petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate suit to establish their claim over the suit schedule property. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is 8. disposed of. No order as to costs. ■a# 4 < As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed as infructuous. SD/- P U V BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S^CWDniT^ICER . The II Additional District Judge, Hindupuram, Anantapur District, (with //TRUE COPY// To. 1 records if any) Sri. T C Krishnan, Advocate [OPUC] 2. OneCCto 3. One CC to Sri. Kale Vijaya Raju, Advocate [OPUC] CC to Sri. M K Raj Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 6. Three CD Copies MKP sree HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ■K' >> ORDER CRP.No.978 of 2020 0 7 FEB 2025 . Current Section . ^ sss^spatcw^S;?^ DISPOSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS