CRP/2922/2023 of BONAM SRINIVASA RAO Vs BONAM CHANDRA SEKHAR on 30 March 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.,09.2022 passed in I.A.No.834 of 2018 in I.A.No.651 of 2018 in O.S.No. 253 of 2018 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Revision Petitioner is the petitioner/ plaintiff, while respondents are the respondents/ respondents/defendants in I.A.No.834 of 2018 in I.A.No.651 of 2018 in O.S.No. 253 of 2018 on the file of the court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that:

(i) In the suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the gift deed dated 14.05.2009 on the ground that the same has been obtained by the defendant fraudulently, he filed the petition vide I.A.No.651 of 2018 under order-1, Rule-10 CPC contending that the defendant transferred the property covered under the gift deed sought to be cancelled in favour of his wife by executing gift deed dated 20.11.2017 and as of now since the property stands in the name of second respondent, she is a necessary and proper party to the suit. The respondents resisted the claim made by the petitioner by filing HC,J

counter stating that respondent no.2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and no relilef whatsoever is claimed against her.

(ii) The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition, observing that presence of the petitioner is not required to adjudicate the issue involved in the suit.

(iii) The said dismissal order is assailed in this civil revision petition.

4. Heard Sri Guntu Dhanaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth learned counsel for respondents.

5. Sri Guntu Dhanaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the grounds of revision would contend that since the property as of now stand in the name of the proposed defendant, she is a proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge upon misconception of facts of the case erroneously dismissed the petition and the same requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for respondents, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court would contend that the proposed defendant is neither a necessary nor a HC,J

proper party to the suit proceedings and the learned trial Judge upon analyzation of the facts and circumstances of the case rightly dismissed the petition. He would further contend that the Civil Revision Petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The plaintiff sought to implead the proposed defendant to a suit filed for declaration that the gift deed was obtained by defendant no.1 by playing fraud and coercion. The main ground urged by him for impleading the proposed defendant is that defendant no.1 gifted away the subject property in favour of defendant no.2 by executing a gift deed and as of now the subject property stands in the name of the defendant no.2.

9. The principle that the plaintiff is the dominus litis is a fundamental rule in civil litigation, granting them the autonomy to decide whom to sue. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to judicial scrutiny and the constraints of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A plaintiff cannot arbitrarily add or implead any party they wish, as the court must ensure that the addition is legally necessary and not merely for convenience. While a plaintiff has the prerogative to choose their adversaries, the court has the authority HC,J

under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC to strike out or add parties to ensure a proper and complete adjudication of the dispute

10. The court will primarily look at whether the person to be added is a "necessary" or "proper" party.Necessary Party is a person without whom no effective decree can be passed. If a necessary party is omitted, the suit may be dismissed. Proper Party is a person whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved, although a decree could technically be passed without them.If a proposed party is neither necessary nor proper, the court lacks jurisdiction to implead them over the objection of the other side, even if the plaintiff requested it.

11. The suit is for declaration that the gift deed is null and void since obtained by respondent no.1 from the petitioner by playing fraud and by coercion. As already stated, the respondent no.2 is sought to be brought on record on the ground that the plaint schedule property was gifted away by respondent no.1 in favour of his wife respondent no.2 by executing a gift deed and since the plaint schedule property as of now stands in the name of respondent no.2, she is a proper and necessary party for adjudication of the claim.

HC,J

12. In a suit filed for declaration that gift deed is null and void on the ground of fraud and coercion, the triable issues would be whether the donee of the gift deed played fraud and there was any coercion on donor that resulted in execution of the gift deed. When once the gift deed is declared null and void, all subsequent transactions in relation to the subject matter of gift would vanish. There is no need for bringing on record all the parties of the subsequent transactions and such an action would unnecessarily expand the scope of the suit and complicate and compound it.

13. Therefore, the proposed defendant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The learned trial Judge upon meticulous analysis of the facts had reached a correct conclusion and rightly dismissed the petition. The well-considered order does not require any interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same deserves dismissal.

14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 31st March, 2026.

RR