N VENKATARATNAMMA Vs. Y KANTAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1955-10-10
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 05,1955

NARAHARISETTY VENKATARATNAMMA Appellant
VERSUS
YERASANI KANTAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, refusing to add the petitioner herein as a party to the suit The suit was instituted by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of possession as against her daughter's son, the 2nd respondent. The case of the pLaintiff-Ist respondent was that she was entitled to revoke the settlement deed and recover possession of the property from her grand-son. The case of the grand-son was that the settlement deed was valid and binding and that the revocation deed was inoperative. The petitioner herein claims to have purchased a portion of the property from the plaintiff1st respondent. She seeks to come on record as a party to the suit. The plaintiff contends that no consideration was paid and that the sale deed is inoperative. In those circumstances, 1 agree with Sri A. S. Prakasam that she is not entitled to be brought on record as a co-plaintiff, and that the question of validity and binding nature of the document cannot be gone into in the suit. But I agree with the contention of Sri Adavi Rama Rao that she would be a proper though not a necessary party to the suit. She claims under the plaintiff-1st respondent. If it is held in the suit between her and her grand-son that she is entitled to revoke the deed, it will enable the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of possession as against the plaintiff. Even to avoid any collusion between the plaintiff and her grand-son, it is just that she should be added as a party-defendant to the suit. I therefore direct that she might be made a party to the suit as a defendant. In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the Court below and allow the revision, but, in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. The petitioner who is added as a party-defendant will not be entitled to the costs of suit. T. R. R. Revision allowed.
(2.)WHERE a suit was filed for setting aside a. settlement deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, a purchaser from the plaintiff of a portion of the property included in the settlement deed is not entitled to be added as a co-plaintiff but being a proper party should be added as a party-defendant to the suit. Petition under Section 115 of Act V of 1908 praying the High Court to revise the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla dated 28-3-1953 and made in I. A. No. 306 of 1953 in O. S. No.97 of 1952. Messrs, Adavi Rama Rao and M. V. Nagaramayya, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Prakasam, for the 1st Respondent. The Court made the following Order. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, refusing to add the petitioner herein as a party to the suit The suit was instituted by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of possession as against her daughter's son, the 2nd respondent. The case of the pLaintiff-Ist respondent was that she was entitled to revoke the settlement deed and recover possession of the property from her grand-son. The case of the grand-son was that the settlement deed was valid and binding and that the revocation deed was inoperative. The petitioner herein claims to have purchased a portion of the property from the plaintiff1st respondent. She seeks to come on record as a party to the suit. The plaintiff contends that no consideration was paid and that the sale deed is inoperative. In those circumstances, 1 agree with Sri A. S. Prakasam that she is not entitled to be brought on record as a co-plaintiff, and that the question of validity and binding nature of the document cannot be gone into in the suit. But I agree with the contention of Sri Adavi Rama Rao that she would be a proper though not a necessary party to the suit. She claims under the plaintiff-1st respondent. If it is held in the suit between her and her grand-son that she is entitled to revoke the deed, it will enable the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of possession as against the plaintiff. Even to avoid any collusion between the plaintiff and her grand-son, it is just that she should be added as a party-defendant to the suit. I therefore direct that she might be made a party to the suit as a defendant. In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the Court below and allow the revision, but, in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. The petitioner who is added as a party-defendant will not be entitled to the costs of suit. T. R. R. Revision allowed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.