//
you're reading...
legal issues

Order I Rule 1 C.P.C=The sole defendant in the Original Suit is the appellant in A.S.No.213 of 2003 and Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited (‘the Society’, for brevity), represented by its authorised signatory, one of the directors and five others are the appellants in A.S.No.2990 of 2004. They were not parties to the main suit, but however, they filed an application in C.M.P.No.15246 of 2003 seeking leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the Society has purchased the suit land and that they are aggrieved by the impugned judgment. The said petition was ordered.=Since it appears that the plaintiffs’ have established their case in the suit filed by them against the defendant that the plaintiffs are dominant litus and they are not claiming relief from the society, their case cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the Society is not impleaded as party to the suit. Though it is also argued on behalf of the appellants that the suit filed by three different plaintiffs in respect of land purchased by them separately and, therefore, they cannot file a joint suit, but, the suit filed by the plaintiffs’ appears to be maintainable under Order I Rule 1 C.P.C., which reads that all the persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative and if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise, since all the plaintiff’s’ have been alleging that the defendant tried to interfere with their possession and claiming relief against one and the same defendant arising out of the same act or transaction, I am of the view that the suit filed by the plaintiffs’ is maintainable.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

English: a photograph of anantha padmanabha sw...

Image via Wikipedia

 

 

APPEAL SUIT Nos.213 of 2003 & 2990 of 2004

 

 

Dated:-        November, 2010

 

 

APPEAL SUIT No.213 of 2003

 

Between:-

 

P.Rathan Lal

…Appellant

 

AND

 

N.Sudarshan Reddy and others

…Respondents

 

APPEAL SUIT No.2990 of 2004

 

Between:-

 

Sri Venkateshwara Coop. Industrial

Estate Limited and others

…Appellants

 

AND

 

N.Sudarshan Reddy and others

…Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

 

APPEAL SUIT Nos.213 of 2003 & 2990 of 2004

 

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

 

Since these two appeals arise out of the one and the same judgment and decree dated 12.07.2002 passed in O.S.No.787 of 1996 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2.          The sole defendant in the Original Suit is the appellant in A.S.No.213 of 2003 and Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited (‘the Society’, for brevity), represented by its authorised signatory, one of the directors and five others are the appellants in A.S.No.2990 of 2004.  They were not parties to the main suit, but however, they filed an application in C.M.P.No.15246 of 2003 seeking leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the Society has purchased the suit land and that they are aggrieved by the impugned judgment. The said petition was ordered.  Accordingly, they have filed an appeal.  For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below.

 

3.          The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the owners and possessors of agricultural dry land admeasuring Acs.0.32 guntas each in Survey No.486 part in Bachupalli Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (‘suit land’, for brevity).  They have purchased the said land by way of three registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.8/96, 9/96 and 10/96, dated 26.12.1995, respectively from their vendors.  The total extent of the suit land, i.e., Acs.2.16 guntas in Survey No. 486, originally belonged to one K.Raghava Reddy and after his death, his
wife – K.Lakshmamma and his sons – K.Venkat Reddy, K.Bal Reddy and K.Janga Redy executed a G.P.A. in favour of one Md.Sharfuddin, M.A.Sharif Ansari and Md.Tajuddin, authorising them to sell the suit land and accordingly, they sold the suit land to M/s.Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad (‘Aurobindo Pharma’, for brevity) under three different sale deeds bearing Document Nos.7501 to 7503 of 1995, dated 03.07.1995, and the plaintiffs’ in turn have purchased the suit land from Aurobindo Pharma as referred above.  It is the further case of the plaintiffs’ that they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land without any interference since their purchase and that they have been granted Patta Certificates through proceedings in R.O.R.No.A/30/96 dated 03.02.1996 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, and accordingly, Pattedar Passbooks were issued to them.

 

4.          The plaintiffs’ further case is that the defendant, who has no concern with the suit land and who is a habitual land grabber, along with anti-social elements, tried to occupy the suit land on 15.12.1996 and the plaintiffs, with the help of the neighbouring land owners, prevented the defendant, quartered his illegal action and lodged police complaint with police, Dundigal, who, in turn, advised the plaintiffs’ to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance and in the above circumstances, the plaintiffs’ filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant through agents and servants.

 

5.          The sole defendant filed written statement.  He had denied the averments made by the plaintiffs’ that the plaintiffs’ have purchased the suit land under different sale deeds from Aurobindo Pharma and that they are in possession of the suit land.  The specific case of the defendant is that the total extent of the land in Survey No.486 of Bachupalli is Acs.15.3 guntas and out of the same, Acs.0.36 guntas is declared as hillock / waste land and that the original owners of the land had sold away an extent of Acs.13.00 guntas of land under registered sale deed dated 11.02.1977 to one Arthur Charles and Acs.1.15 guntas to one Seshagiri Rao and another Acs.0.25 guntas to Smt. Indira Devi under different sale deeds and no land is available to be sold in Survey No.486 of Bachupalli village.  It is also his case that he is the Secretary of the said Society and the Society is the agreement-holder of lands in Survey no.486 and 487 of Bachupalli Village under the agreement dated 28.10.1980 executed by Arthur Charles and K.Indira Devi.  It is also his case that the Government of Andhra Pradesh have granted exemption vide G.O.Ms.No.639 dated 03.06.1981 and the nature of the land has been converted from residential area to the industrial area.  It is also his case that the Society has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the Society.

 

6.          The Court below framed only three issues for trial, which are as follows:-

1.     Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property;

 

2.     Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for;

 

3.     to what relief.

 

 

7.          On behalf of the plaintiffs’, N.Ashok Reddy – the second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one K.Janardhan Reddy – Advocate Commissioner was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.23 were marked.  On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and one K.Narasimha Reddy was examined as D.W.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.14 were marked.  Exs.C.1 to C.5 were also marked through the evidence of Advocate Commissioner.

 

8.          The Court below, after analysing the oral and documental evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and that the title deeds of said Seshagiri Rao and K.Indira Devi are not filed by the defendant and that the defendant (D.W.1) could not say on which side of the road the land in Survey No.486 is situated and that the plaintiffs’ are entitled for injunction against the defendant.

 

9.          Sri D.Vijaya Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants herein / defendant before the Court below submitted that the Court below failed to take into consideration that the suit land belongs to the Society and the Society has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land by virtue of agreement of sale in their favour from the year 1980 onwards uninterruptedly and that by virtue of its continuous possession, it has perfected its title by way of adverse possession.  It is also contended that the Court below did not consider that the Society was a necessary party to the suit and that the Court below ought to have dismissed the suit for non-joinder of the necessary party.  It is also his contention that the Court below failed to see that the defendant was shown in his individual capacity and not in the capacity as the representative of the Society.  It is also contended that the Court below failed to take into consideration that the identity of the property was not established.

 

10.          Sri Narasimha Chary, learned counsel for the Society submitted that the suit for injunction cannot be decreed without considering the title of the plaintiffs’ and that the burden lies on the plaintiffs’ to prove their title and possession of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit and that the Pahanis filed by the defendant show that the entire extent of Acs.15.3 guntas of land has been in possession of the Society and some other persons and that no land was available to be sold to the plaintiffs’ and, therefore, the Court below ought to have dismissed the suit.  It is also his contention that by virtue of the injunction order, the plaintiffs have taken away the possession of the suit land and that the Society was not a party before the Court below and the Society could not file the relevant documents and that the documents filed by the Society may be received as additional evidence which prove that the Society has been in possession of the suit land.

 

11.          Per contra, Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents herein / plaintiffs’ before the Court below submitted that the plaintiffs’ are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit land and that since the defendant alone was interfering with their possession, they filed a suit against him.  It is also his case that since none of the members of the Society interfered with their peaceful possession, there is no necessity for the plaintiffs’ to file a suit against the Society.  It is also his contention that the plaintiffs’ are dominant litus and it is their discretion to file a suit against the persons chosen by them.  It is also his contention that the plaintiffs’ have adduced oral and documentary evidence which proves that they have been in possession of the suit land and the Court below has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and decreed the suit.  It is also his contention that the defendant’s evidence is not satisfactory and that the defendant, who has been examined as D.W.1, could not say whether the suit land is on the eastern side of the road or on the western side of the road and the documents filed by the defendants also show that the vendors of the plaintiffs’ were in possession of the suit land.  It is also his contention that if at all there is any grievance to the Society and if at all the Society has been disputing the title of the plaintiffs’ or claiming title over the suit land, the Society is at liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit seeking declaration of title against the plaintiffs’ and that the Society cannot seek a declaration of title in the suit filed by the plaintiffs’ for injunction.

 

12.          I have considered the entire documentary and oral evidence and also the rival contentions carefully.  The points that arise for consideration in both these appeals are (1) whether the plaintiffs have proved their title and possession over the suit land and whether they are entitled for the relief claimed by them; and (2) whether there are any merits in the appeal filed by the Society and if so, what is the remedy available to the society.

 

POINT No.1

 

13.          As seen from the recitals of Ex.A.21 and A.22 – Pahanis for the year 1965 – 1966 and 1964 and 1965 respectively, the total extent of land in Survey No.486 is shown as Acs.15.7 guntas and in the column No.11, the names of Subhan Reddy as owner of Acs.4.30 guntas, Srinivasa Reddy as owner of Acs.4.31 guntas and Krishta Reddy as owner of Acs.4.30 guntas have been written and in column No. 13, the names of Bal Reddy, Raghava Reddy, Kishta Reddy, Narsimha Reddy (purchaser) and K.Ramachandra Reddy have been written as possessors.  Thus it appears that Subhan Reddy, father of K.Raghava Reddy, was the owner of Acs.4.30 guntas of land.  It also appears that Subhan Reddy, Chandra Reddy and his brother got partitioned their properties in the year 1975 and they got each 1/3rd share in that partition.  The evidence of D.W.2 – K.Narasimha Reddy also reveals that he is the son of K.Chandra Reddy and that his father had two brothers i.e. one Subhan Reddy and another (he does not remember the name of another brother of his father). It is also his case that the total extent of land fell to their share is around 40 acres and that in all the lands, they were entitled to 1/3rd share each.

 

14.          It is not in dispute that K.Lakshmamma is the wife of K.Raghava Reddy and K.Venkat Reddy, K.Bal Reddy and K.Janga Reddy are the sons of K.Raghava Reddy.  The plaintiffs’ case is that the suit land originally belonged to K.Raghava Reddy and after his demise, his wife and sons executed G.P.A. in favour of M.D.Sharfudin, M.A.Shafi Ansari and Mohd.Tajuddin, authorising them to sell the suit land  vide document No.117/95 dated 17.06.1995, which is marked as Ex.A.1.  Exs.A.2, A.3 and A.4 are the sale deeds executed by K.Lakshmamma and her sons K.Venkat Reddy, K.Bal Reddy and K.Janga Reddy along with their G.P.A. holders in favour of Aurobindo Pharma.  The plaintiffs have purchased each Acs.0.32 guntas of land from Aurobindo Pharma under Exs.A.5 to A.7 dated 26.12.1995, and eastern boundary, in these sale deeds, has been shown as road and western boundary as Survey No.487 and other boundaries as part of Survey No.486. Thus, the plaintiffs’ case is that the entire suit land has been purchased by them i.e. Acs.0.32 guntas by each of them in Survey No.486 with specific boundaries and with the plan attached to their sale deeds and that since the sole defendant tried to interfere with their possession, they filed the suit.

 

15.          Ex.A.8 is Mutation Proceedings dated 24.09.1995 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, mutating the name of Aurobindo Pharma as the owner of the land in the place of K.Raghava Reddy.  Ex.A.9 is also the Mutation Proceedings issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, mutating the names of the plaintiffs’ in the place of K.Raghava Reddy.  Ex.A.10 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1995 – 1996 showing the name of Aurobindo Pharma as Pattedar and possessor of Acs.2.16 guntas of land in Survey No.486.  Ex.A.11 is the Pahani for the year 1995 – 1996 showing the names of the plaintiffs as Pattadars and possessors.  Ex.A.12 is the Cist receipt dated 17.08.1996 showing the payment of Cist for the years 1995 – 1996 and 1996 – 1997 by the 3rd plaintiff.  Ex.A.13 is the Cist receipt dated 17.08.1996 showing the payment of Cist by the first plaintiff for the year 1995 – 1996 and 1996 – 1997.  Ex.A.14 is the Cist receipt dated 17.08.1996 showing payment of land revenue by the second plaintiff for the years 1995 – 1996 and 1996 – 1997.  Exs.A.15 to A.20 are the Pattedar Passbooks issued to the plaintiffs’ in respect of the suit land to the extent of the land held by each of them.  Ex.A.23 is the sale deed dated 16.11.1996 executed by K.Indira Devi in favour of the Society showing the sale of land in Survey No.486 part and 487 part, i.e., Acs.0.25 guntas in Survey No.486 and Acs.12.15 guntas in Survey No.487.

 

16.          On behalf of the plaintiffs’, P.W.1 has been examined and he has deposed about their purchase and possession.  The plaintiffs’ have also examined P.W.2 – K.Janardhan Reddy, a practising Advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner to survey and measure the suit land.  According to his evidence, he got the land surveyed with the help of a surveyor and that there is a road in Survey No.486 and that the suit land is on the western side of the road.  Ex.C.1 is the report filed by him and Ex.C.2 is the plan.

 

17.          On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and one K. Narasimha Reddy was examined as D.W.2.  The defendant (D.W.1) deposed that he is the secretary of Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative Industrial Estate and the said Society purchased lands in Survey No.486 and 487 under sale deeds dated 28.10.1990 from one Arthur Charles and Smt K.Indira Devi.  It is also his case that the original owner of the land sold an extent of Acs.0.13 guntas to Arthur Charles, Acs.1.15 guntas to Seshagiri Rao and Acs.0.25 guntas to Smt. K.Indira Devi under registered sale deeds and that the Society has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

 

18.          As referred supra, on behalf of the defendant, Exs.B.1 to B.14 were marked.  Ex.B.1 is G.O.Ms.No.639, Housing Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 03.06.1981, which shows that the lands in several survey numbers including Survey No.486 and 487 of Bachupalli Village, which were earmarked for residential use, have been converted into Industrial Zone to enable the Society to establish the industries. Ex.B.2 is the sale deed executed by Kolan Kishta Reddy, Kolan Narasimha Reddy and Kolan Venkat Reddy, sons of Late Chandra Reddy in favour of Jogi Arthur Charles on 11.02.1977.  The recitals of these sale deed shows that the vendors therein claimed 1/3rd share in Survey Nos.484, 485, 486 and 487 and had specifically mentioned that 2/3rd share of those lands belong to their cousin brothers and that they had orally partitioned their lands in the year 1975 and that they were allotted Acs.13.00 guntas of land as their 1/3rd share in Survey No.486.  Thus, what is sold by the vendors under Ex.B.2 is only Acs.13.00 guntas of land and the boundaries reveal that Survey No.484 is on the northern side, Survey No.345 is on the southern side, Survey Nos.406 and 407 are on the eastern side and Zilla Parishad Road is on the western side.  Ex.B.3 is the Pahani for the year 1980 – 1981.  In this exhibit, in column No.11, names of Raghava Reddy, Indira Devi, Kalama Sarojini and Kishta Reddy have been written.  In column No.16, different extents of land have been written.  Extent of land shown in the possession of different persons is as follows.  Raghava Reddy – Acs.0.15 guntas, Kangamma, W/o. Mohan Reddy – Acs.0.10 guntas, Indira Devi – Acs.0.01 guntas, Kishta Reddy – Acs.0.29 guntas, Narasimha Reddy – Acs.0.09 guntas, Venkatesh – Acs.0.10 guntas and Acs.13.00 guntas in the possession of Arthur Charles.  The specific case of D.W.2 is that only Acs.13.00 guntas of land was allotted towards their share, which they sold to Arthur Charles.  When they have already sold their entire extent of Acs.13.00 guntas in favour of Arthur Charles vide Ex.B.2, showing some other extents of land in their possession in Ex.A.3 appears to be incorrect.  However, it has to be seen that the name of K.Raghava Reddy has been mentioned in column Nos.11 and 16 and of course, the name of Venkat Reddy is also written in column No.11.  Ex.B.4 is the Pahani for the year 1982 – 1983.  In this exhibit, in column No.11, in addition to the names mentioned in Ex.A.3, the name of Mohan Reddy is also written but in column No.16, the name of Arthur Charles alone has been written.  In Exs.B.5, B.6, B.7, B.8 and B.9 also, the names shown in column No.11 are the same names as in column No.11 of Ex.B.4, but, in column No.13, the names of several other persons have been written.  What is to be noted with reference to the entries in the above referred Pahanis filed by the defendant in Ex.B.3 to B.12 are that even the entries in Exs.B.3, B.4, B.5 and B.10 reveal the names of Raghava Reddy, i.e. the father of the vendors of the plaintiffs’.  In possessors’ column, at several places, even in Ex.B.11 and B.12, the names of Bal Reddy and Venkat Reddy, sons of Raghava Reddy have been written.  Thus, from the evidence, it appears that the plaintiffs’ have proved that the suit land originally belong to K.Raghava Reddy and his wife and sons and they have sold the same to the vendors of the plaintiffs’ from whom the plaintiffs’ have purchased the same.  The case of the defendant is that the total extent of land in Survey No.486 is Acs.15.36 guntas and that the sons of Chandra Reddy have sold Acs.13.00 guntas to Arthur Charles and Acs.1.15 guntas to Seshagiri Rao and Acs.0.25 guntas to their Society.  Admittedly, as per Ex.B.2, the sons of Chandra Reddy, i.e. the vendors of Arthur Charles, had categorically stated that they were allotted only Acs.13.00 guntas towards their 1/3rd share in Survey No.486 and when they were owners of only Acs.13.00 guntas of land, they could not sell remaining land to said Seshagiri Rao or to Smt. Indira Devi in Survey No.486. Ex.A.23 – sale deed executed by Smt. Indira Devi in favour of the Society shows that she claimed only Acs.0.25 guntas in Survey No.486 and Acs.12.15 guntas in Survey No.487.  Admittedly, no document has been filed to show how the said Indira Devi got title to Acs.0.25 guntas of land in Survey No.486 and how Seshagiri Rao got Acs.1.15 guntas of land from whom they had purchased the land.  Even the case of the Society appears to be that it has purchased Acs.12.15 guntas of land in Survey No.487 and Acs.0.25 guntas of land from Indira Devi, i.e., total Acs.13.00 guntas of land.

 

19.          Moreover, it is the case of the defendant that Acs.0.36 guntas of land is covered by hillock which is waste land, Acs.13.00 guntas, Acs.1.15 guntas and Acs.0.25 guntas of land have been purchased from Arthur Charles, Seshagiri Rao and Indira Devi respectively.  The total extent of all these lands comes to Acs.15.36 guntas whereas the total extent of land in Survey No.486 itself is Acs.15.03 guntas.  Moreover, the title deeds of Seshagiri Rao and Indira Devi have not been filed.  Moreover, Ex.B.10 shows that Bal Reddy and Venkat Reddy, who are the sons of K.Raghava Reddy, are in possession of Acs.0.28 guntas and Acs.0.26 guntas of land respectively.  Moreover, it has to be seen that the defendant had not examined Seshagiri Rao and Indira Devi, who claims to have purchased a part of land in Survey No.486.  Though the defendant had filed the sale deeds showing purchase of Acs.13.00 guntas of land by Arthur Charles, he has not filed any sale deed showing purchase of land by the Society in Survey No.486.  the case of the Society, as seen from their pleadings, is that they have purchased only Acs.0.25 guntas of land in Survey No.486 and Acs.12.15 guntas in Survey No.487, whereas, the case of the defendant, as seen from the written statement filed by him, is that the original owners of the suit land sold Acs.13.00 guntas of land in Survey No.486 to Arthur Charles from whom the Society claims to have purchased the same.  Thus, there is variation in the case put forth by the defendant and the case of the Society.  Anyhow, the extents of lands shown in possession of each individual in the Pahanis filed in this case appears to be not reflecting the true state of affairs, since those extents of lands do not refer to the extents of land covered by the road.  The suit was filed in the year 1996.  A careful examination of entire record reveals that during the relevant period, the plaintiffs’ were in possession of the suit land and even the documents filed by the defendant refer to the names of vendors of the plaintiff.  Thus, it appears that the case of the defendant is not consistent.

 

20.          Coming to the issue of localisation of the suit land, it is the case of the plaintiffs’ that the suit land is surrounded by land of 3rd plaintiff towards north, Survey No.486 part towards south, 90” road towards East and Survey No.487 towards West. But, Ex.B.2 – sale deed executed in favour of Arthur Charles, from whom the Society claims to have purchased the suit land, reveals that the suit land is surrounded by Survey No.484 towards north, Survey No.345 towards South, Survey Nos.406 and 407 towards East and Zilla Parishad Road towards West.  Thus, Acs.13.00 guntas of land, which the defendant claims to have been purchased by the Society, is towards EAST of the road, but whereas the land purchased by the plaintiffs is towards WEST of the road and, therefore, it appears that both these lands are not one and the same.  Of course, the sale deed executed by Smt. Indira Devi under Ex.A.23 in favour of the Society reveals that the land is also towards west of the road, but, admittedly, no documents showing the title deed of Smt. Indira Devi have been filed.  It has to be seen that the defendant himself admitted that he does now know who is the original Pattadar of Survey No.486 and that he did not file any document showing the name of the original pattedar.  Though he claims that the Society purchased Acs.0.25 guntas of land in Survey No.486 from said Indira Devi, he himself had categorically deposed that he cannot say whether Acs.0.25 guntas of land is on the eastern side of the road or on the western side of the road.  Also, he is not able to say on which side of the road Survey No.486 is situated.  He had admitted that in their written statement, Survey No.486 is on the eastern side of the road.  Thus, the admissions made by the defendant (D.W.1) himself shows that he is not sure about the location of land claimed by him.  P.W.2 – the Advocate Commissioner also confirmed that the suit land is towards West of the road.  Though objections were filed by the defendants, I have considered those objections and hold that there are no merits in those objections.  Thus, the evidence on record shows that the plaintiffs’ case is consistent and the evidence of P.W.2 – the Advocate Commissioner also support the version of the plaintiffs.  It has to be seen that D.W.2 himself, who is the vendor of the defendant, did not speak about the sale of lands in favour of said Indira Devi or Seshagiri Rao.  Therefore it appears that the Court below has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the findings of the Court below are based on evidence and there are no grounds in the appeal filed by the defendant.

 

POINT No.2

 

21.          Coming to the appeal filed by the Society, admittedly, the society was not a party to the suit and the said suit is filed only against the sole defendant in his individual capacity.  Thus, the impugned judgment is the judgment in personem and not a judgment in rem.  Thus, admittedly, the judgment of the Court below does not bind the other persons who are not the parties to the suit and the persons who are not claiming any right through the defendant.  The Society’s specific case, as seen from the contents of the affidavit filed by one V.Purushottam, one of the Directors of the Society in application seeking re-delivery of the possession in C.M.P.No.12748 of 2004, is that the Society entered into an agreement of sale with one Smt. K.Indira Devi on 28.10.1980 to purchase an extent of Acs.13.00 guntas of land i.e. Acs.0.40 guntas in Survey No.486 and Acs.12.60 guntas in Survey no.487.  Thus, their specific case is that the total extent of Acs.13.00 guntas purchased by them is Acs.0.40 guntas in Survey No.486 and Acs.12.60 guntas in Survey no.487, whereas, the case of the defendant in this suit is that said Arthur Charles purchased the entire Acs.13.00 guntas of land in Survey No.486.  The society had also filed an application to receive the additional documents.  There is no need to discuss about the recitals of those documents, since those documents have not been marked.  Of course, the case of the Society itself is that they have purchased major extent of land in Survey No.487.  Learned counsel for the Society refers to the documents in Ex.B.14. According to him, that document was executed by K.Raghava Reddy himself stating that Acs.13.00 guntas in Survey No.486 belongs to the sons of Chandra Reddy, who sold the same to Arthur Charles and that he has no claim for that land.  The total extent of land in Survey No.486 is Acs.15.03 guntas (at some places, it is shown as Acs.15.8 guntas in Ex.B.14).  According to the defendant, Arthur Charles purchased Acs.13.00 guntas of land in Survey No.486.  The plaintiffs claim that they have purchased Acs.2.16 guntas from the sons of Raghava Reddy.  The total extent comes to Acs.15.16 guntas.  However, the total extent of Survey No.486 appears to be only Acs.15.03 guntas.  So there appears to be some dispute with regard to the Acs.0.13 guntas of land.  Whether Acs.2.16 guntas was allotted to K.Raghava Reddy in their family partition or not, whether entire Acs.13.00 guntas of land was allotted to the father of Chandra Reddy or not cannot be decided in this appeal in the absence of any evidence.  Of course, one thing is clear that the land purchased by the Society and the land purchased by the plaintiffs’ seems to have been divided by the road.  Since the case of the defendant is not consistent and he is not clear as to which side of the road land sold by Indira Devi is situated and in view of the variation in the case of the defendant and the Society, I feel that the plaintiffs’ case has to be accepted for the present against the defendant and the society is not covered by the judgment against the defendant.  In the above circumstances, the Society, if so advised, may file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and for other reliefs.

 

22.          Since it appears that the plaintiffs’ have established their case in the suit filed by them against the defendant that the plaintiffs are dominant litus and they are not claiming relief from the society, their case cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the Society is not impleaded as party to the suit.  Though it is also argued on behalf of the appellants that the suit filed by three different plaintiffs in respect of land purchased by them separately and, therefore, they cannot file a joint suit, but, the suit filed by the plaintiffs’ appears to be maintainable under Order I Rule 1 C.P.C., which reads that all the persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative and if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise, since all the plaintiff’s’ have been alleging that the defendant tried to interfere with their possession and claiming relief against one and the same defendant arising out of the same act or transaction,
I am of the view that the suit filed by the plaintiffs’ is maintainable.

 

23.          In the light of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons and subject to the observations made supra, both the Appeal Suits are dismissed.  Be it made clear that this judgment will not come in the way of the Society in seeking appropriate relief, if any, from appropriate Court, if so advised.  However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

 

___________________________

Justice B.Chandra Kumar

 

03rd November, 2010

 

Bvv

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,076 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: