APHC010229652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Thirty First Day of July Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1208 of 2025 Between: Chakali Kunti Yellappa and others ...Petitioners and Chakali Yerranna @ Vankataramudu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Murali Lincoln Counsel for the respondents: 1. Varun Byreddy 2. Dasani Venkata Ramana The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 Order: This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.04.2025 dismissing I.A.No.206 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed by the plaintiff under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., to implead the respondents No.4 to 6 as the defendants No.4 to 6 in the suit and to permit the plaintiffs to make consequential amendments. 2. The plaintiffs filed suit for partition. Pending the suit, the defendant No.3 sold item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties to the respondents No.4 and 5 under registered sale deed document No.2184 of 2022 before S.R.O., Kurnool dated 31.01.2022. The petitioners / plaintiffs seek impleadment of the purchasers stating that the property was sold basing on wrong revenue entries and that the defendant No.6, former Tahsildar, Kurnool, colluded with the defendants No.1 and 3 and manipulated the revenue records wrongly altering „assigned land‟ to „patta land‟ and the name of defendant No.3 was entered in the pattadar passbook. Further, the defendant No.3 sold suit property to defendants No.4 and 5 and the said sale deed was executed at S.R.O., Kurnool. 3. Since the suit against defendant No.2 / respondent No.2 in I.A.No.206 of 2024 was dismissed, there was no contest by her. 4. The petition in I.A.No.206 of 2024 was opposed by filing counter of the 1st respondent / 1st defendant and the counter of the 3rd respondent / defendant mainly contending that the proposed parties are no way concerned to the present suit transactions and 3 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 there is no specific relief asked against the proposed defendants and moreover, the Tahsildar who acted in good faith in discharge of the duties cannot be dragged into litigation. 5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition in so far as respondents No.4 and 5 is concerned on the ground that no relief was sought against them, particularly with reference to the alleged sale deed and therefore, no purpose would be served by mere their impleadment. In so far as respondent No.6, the petition was dismissed as he was an official party and the allegations relate to duties discharged by him in good faith and cannot be dragged into the litigation in his personal capacity. 6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed. The learned counsel for revision petitioners / plaintiffs submitted that the purchasers pendente lite are necessary parties and therefore they shall be allowed to be added, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanlakshmi and Ors Vs.P.Mohan and Ors1. He further submitted that there is no need to seek any prayer in respect of the registered sale deed executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the respondents No.4 and 5 as the decree in the suit is binding on them and the sale is subject to the result of the decree. 7. The learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 submitted that the proposed parties are not necessary parties since the sale is hit by lis pendens and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition in so far as respondents No.4 and 5 are concerned and 1 (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 719 4 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 that the respondent No.6 is no way connected to the relief in the suit and therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. 8. The notice in the revision petition was sent to the respondent No.2 / defendant No.2. It was returned un-served for want of door number. No further notice was ordered as the suit against the defendant No.2 was dismissed. 9. Though the respondent No.4 remained ex-parte before the trial Court, he made appearance before this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 / proposed party submitted that there is no objection to allow the petition and implead the respondent No.4 as defendant to the suit as the vendors may lose interest in defending the suit and thereby the interest of the purchaser would be defeated, unless the suit is effectively defended by the purchaser(s). 10. He further submitted that a purchaser pendente lite in a suit for partition is also a necessary party and reliance was placed on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chappidi Subbareddy and others Vs. Chappidi Narapureddy and others2 particularly on paragraph No. 24, which reads as follows: “24. From a conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments, touching upon the present aspect, broadly, the following would emerge; Firstly, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be 2 2006 (3) ALD 516 5 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order 1 Rule 10 С.Р.С. or under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C., as a general principle; Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right; Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party; (Emphasis added) Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave and come on record that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record; Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of his (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented; Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and, Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C., can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit.” 6 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 11. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Marisa Manikyam Vs. Kubireddy Apparao3 particularly on paragraph No.21, which reads as follows: “21. In Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/0663/2012: (2012) 8 SCC 384, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: „36. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 1. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. 3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, 3 AIR 2023 AP 37 7 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the Plaintiff. 5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impeadment”. 12. Though notice was sent to respondent No.5, it was returned un-served as refused. In fact, the respondent No.5 remained ex- parte before the trial Court. 13. The notice sent to the respondent No.6 was returned un-served with the endorsement „addressee left‟. Since the respondent No.6 who is the Tahsildar, in his personal capacity, was sought to be impleaded by the plaintiffs in a suit for partition on the ground of the alleged collusion, the trial Court rightly 8 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 dismissed the petition against him as he is not a necessary party in the suit for partition. 14. Further, the trial Court dismissed the relief against the respondents No.4 and 5 on the ground mainly that no relief was sought in respect of the sale deed in their favour. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that no such relief is required to be sought in suit for partition as the purchasers pendente lite are bound by relief in the suit and moreover, such relief can be prayed at any time later on, if required; but, it is not a ground to dismiss the petition. This argument is tenable and accordingly, the order of the trial Court on this basis is not sustainable. 15. In view of the legal preposition in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Dhanlakshmi (supra) and the decisions of the High Court referred by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 cited supra, the respondents No.4 and 5 ought to have been impleaded as the defendants No.4 and 5, but the trial Court committed error in dismissing the petition even against them. 16. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order dated 02.04.2025, in I.A.No.206 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, is set aside to the extent of dismissing the petition against the respondents No.4 and 5 and consequently allowed the petition against them and partly dismissed by confirming the order to the extent of dismissing the petition against the respondent No.6. 9 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 17. Insofar as the consequential amendments are concerned, wherever it occurs in the proposed amendments while describing D.Venkatesh Naik, the then Tahsildar, the words “6th defendant” shall be omitted and his name shall be substituted wherever there is reference by the words “6th defendant” alone and the rest of the pleadings for amendment shall be allowed to be carried out as they are proposed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Date: 31.07.2025 RSD 10 C.R.P.No.1208 of 2025 204 The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1208 of 2025 Date: 31.07.2025 RSD