Telangana High Court
CRP/5367/2009 of Kaldi Aggiramulu ( died ) Vs Datla Venkata Krishnam Raju on 31 December 2009
A . GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5367 OF 2009 DATE:31-12-2009 BETWEEN Kaladi Aggiramudu (died) per L.Rs. & others …Petitioners AND Datla Venkata Krishnam Raju & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A . GOPAL REDDY CIVIL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5367 OF 2009DATE:31-12-2009
BETWEEN
Kaladi Aggiramudu (died) per L.Rs. & others
AND
…Petitioners
Datla Venkata Krishnam Raju & Others.
…Respondents
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5367 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India isdirected by the defendants1,3 and 4 assailing the orders of thePrincipal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 26.10.2009dismissing I.A.No.1418 of 2008 in O.S.No.195 of 2006 filed underOrder I Rule 10 C.P.C. to add respondents 3 and 4 as defendants5 and 6 in the suit.
Originally, the first respondent herein instituted the abovesuit against the defendants 1 and 2 for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Since the first defendant died, the petitionersherein came on record as defendants 3 and 4. Later, thepetitioners herein filed the impugned I.A. contending that the landwhich was subject-matter of agreement of sale is the GovernmentPorambok land which was assigned to the fishermen for cultivationand therefore, no decree as such can be passed for specificperformance of agreement of sale. The Village Secretary ofPolekurru, who was summoned to produce the revenue recordspertaining to the suit schedule property, was examined as D.W.3and he admitted that all the lands covered by Exs.X.4 to X.14 aregovernment lands.
This Court in Bandikata Satyavathi v. Bandikata VenkataRao (2001 (1) ALT 338) categorically held that the procedureunder Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. should always be adopted where it isreally necessary for a complete adjudication under the questionsinvolved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition ofTransfers) Act, 1977 prohibits the transfer of assigned lands. Asseen from the record, the Village Revenue Officer, PolekurruVillage on being summoned by the petitioners, was examined asD.W.3 who produced the relevant records pertaining to the suitschedule property and in the chief-examination he categoricallydeposed that all the lands covered by Exs.X.4 to X.14 aregovernment lands. If that be the case, whether the lands areassigned lands granted patta in favour of the petitioners-defendants has to be gone into in the main suit to avoid multiplicityof proceedings. Time and again this Court held that even at thetime of execution of the decree, an objection can be raised as tothe executability of the decree. Primafacie, in view of theevidence of D.W.3, to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, theproposed defendants 5 and 6 i.e. the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Tahsildar, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District have to beadded. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot besustainable.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order isset aside and I.A.No.1418 of 2009 stands allowed. No order as tocosts.
_______________
A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
DECEMBER 31, 2009Tsr.