1

Date of reserved for orders : 20.08.2026

Date of pronouncement : 16.09.2026

Date of uploading : 16.09.2026

APHC010608932013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

TUESDAY, THE 15

th

DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

IN

APPEAL SUIT N O: 160 OF 2013

Between:

1. K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Bayappa Reddy, occ:Employee R/o

Yeguvapalli Village, Garladine Mandal, Anantapur District.

...Petitioner

AND

1. Thaluparu Channa Reddy, S/o Thippa Reddy, Cultivation, R/o

Mukundapuram, Garladine Mandal, Anantapur District.

...Respondent

to set aside the Judgment and decree dt. 21-01-2013 passed in

OS.NO.86/2011 on the file of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track

Court) Anantapur and allow the appeal, in the interest of Justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(ASMP 527 OF 2013

2

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

stay operation of the Judgment and decree dt. 21-01-2013 passed in

OS.NO.86/2011 on the file of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track

Court), Anantapur incuding costs, pending disposal of the appeal.

IA NO: 2 OF 2013(ASMP 1367 OF 2013

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

Order Vacate the stay order dt.27.02.2013 in A.S.M.P.No.527/2013 in

A.S.No.160/2013. Due to stay order the petitioner not able to obtained

registered sale deed in the lower court. In spite of deposited entire sale

consideration amount in the lower court by the petitioner, in the interest of

justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

pleased to permit Smt Patel Rani and Kumari Patel Anusha to implead as ed

respondents No. 2 & 3 as party respondents in AS. No. 160 of 2013, and

pass

Counsel for the Petitioner: S KRISHNA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent J NARAYANA SWAMY

The Court made the following order:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025

IN

APPEAL SUIT NO.160 OF 2013

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)

Introductory:-

[i] This is an application filed invoking Order-I Rule 10 r/w Section

151 of CPC. The petitioners are the third parties. They pray for coming on

record as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the appeal vide A.S.No.160 of 2013

pending before this Court.

[ii] The appeal in A.S.No.160 of 2013 is directed against the Decree

and Judgment dated 21.01.2013 passed in O.S. No. 86 of 2011 on the file of

III Additional District Judge, Anantapur.

[iii] The suit in O.S. No.86 of 2011 was filed seeking specific

performance of the agreement of sale, dated 20.12.2007, allegedly executed

by one K.Ramakrishna Reddy (defendant) in favour of the T.Chenna Reddy

(plaintiff). The suit was decreed granting specific performance and directing

the defendant to execute the registered sale deed upon payment of balance

sale consideration. The unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal. However,

during the pendency of the appeal, the present application is filed by the third

parties.

4

2. For the sake of convenience parties will be hereinafter referred as ‘the

plaintiff’, the defendant’ and the petitioners/proposed respondents 2 and 3.

Contention of the petitioners/ proposed respondents 2 and 3:-

3. [i] The defendant in the suit is having only half share in respect of

Ac.4.82 cents in Survey No. 235. But he has executed agreement of sale

without having right over the property. The half share was derived from one

Konduru Byappareddy in terms of Document No.4383 of 1957 dated

07.12.1957.

[ii] The petitioners/ proposed respondents No.2 and 3 also have right

over the subject properties; therefore, they are proper and necessary parties

to the proceedings. They have no knowledge of either the filing of the suit or

subsequent appeal. It was only upon coming to know of the pendency of the

present appeal, after appearing in W.P. No.13314 of 2025 filed by the

defendant/appellant, the petitioners filed the present application.

[iii] The source of the title of the defendant as per his written

statement in O.S.No.39 of 2007 is, that from one Byappareddy, who gifted half

of his share to his wife Lakshmi Devi, through a registered gift deed dated

05.04.1957, and on the death of said Lakshmi Devi, the petitioners along with

other family members enjoyed said half share and there was compromise

during the year 2010, between the respondent and his two daughters. Thus,

5

the petitioners herein/impleading parties are original owners as long as the

litigation is pending either in the suit or appeal.

[iv] Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC enables the Court to implead the party,

who is in the opinion of the Court is necessary party. Since the petitioners

are proper and necessary parties, therefore prays to permit them to implead

as party respondents No.2 and 3 in A.S.No.160 of 2013.

Contention of the plaintiff:-

4. The petition is not maintainable. The agreement of sale was entered

into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The subject property was agreed

to be sold for Rs.6,90,000/- per acre and on 20.12.2007 Rs.4,00,000/- was

received as advance. The balance sale consideration was agreed to be

paid within (4) months and the registration to be completed by then.

Meanwhile, the defendant's daughter M.Naramada filed O.S No. 39 of 2007

before the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Anantapur for partition of the properties, inclusive of the properties covered by

the agreement of sale. Due to the pendency of the said suit, registration was

postponed. In July 2011, the plaintiff came to know that the suit in O.S No.39

of 2007 was ended in settlement between the defendant and his daughter and

a compromise decree was also passed on 18.02.2010. Plaintiff got issued a

legal notice informing his readiness, and at last for non-compliance, demands

were made. Present suit is filed for specific performance and the same is

6

ended in decree in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a notice

informing the readiness to pay the balance sale consideration, but a reply was

issued informing the pendency of the appeal and stay petition.

5. The proposed respondents Nos.2 and 3 have sufficient knowledge of

the agreement of sale. The present application has been filed at the instance

of the appellant/defendant only with an intention to delay the final hearing of

the appeal, which is now coming up for final disposal. If the proposed parties

feels that they have any right, title, or interest in respect of the subject

property, they ought to have sought their impleadment before the learned Trial

Court itself or they should have sought appropriate relief by instituting a

separate suit. Their impleadment in the present appeal would serve no

purpose, except further delaying the legal remedies to plaintiff, therefore,

prays to dismiss the present application.

Contention of the defendant/K. Ramakrishna Reddy: -

6. [i] The assertions made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in

support of the petition are false.

[ii] One Konduru Bayappa Reddy was in possession and enjoyment

of Ac.4.82 cents in Sy.No.235 and in an extent of 4.18 cents in S.No.238 of

Kalluru Agraharam Village of Garladenne Mandal, Ananthapuram District till

his death. He never sold the properties to Basi Reddy and neither his sons nor

7

the impleadment respondents/petitioners herein, enjoyed the same and they

have no right or title over the property.

[iii] Dispute in the present litigation is between the defendant and the

plaintiff, which is purely contractual in nature and the proposed parties are

strangers to the agreement. Therefore, they are not proper and necessary

parties and their presence is not necessary, and it will change the nature and

character of the suit from a specific performance, to that of a declaration of

title etc.

[iv] The implead petitioners have filed a suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2022 on

the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram and the same is

pending for trial. On suppressing the same, present petition is filed. Therefore,

the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Before proceeding with further discussion, this Court considers it

appropriate to note that the description and array of the parties in the cause

title of the petition and in the counter-affidavit were set out casually, without

due regard to the requisite procedural formalities. The parties seeking

impleadment ought to have been shown as petitioners, while the plaintiff and

the defendant to have been arrayed as the respondents. Further, for the sake

of clarity, the respective rankings of the petitioners and respondents, including

the third parties/implead respondents, the plaintiff and the defendant, ought to

have been clearly indicated. In the counter affidavit, one Thaluparu Channa

8

Reddy, referred as first respondent and the proposed parties also referred as

respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 at some places. However, by referring

to the pleadings and identifying the parties by their respective names, as

reflected in the affidavits filed by them as well as the submissions made

across the bench, this Court is able to ascertain the stand taken by each of

the parties. Their respective contentions have, accordingly, been set out

hereinabove.

8. Heard the arguments submitted by Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/proposed respondents No.2 and 3, who are

seeking impleadment, and Sri Seelam Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the

defendant/appellant and Sri J.Narayanaswami, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the plaintiff.

9. Heard all the parties extensively.

10. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo along

with certain documents i.e., 1) a copy of the sale deed, dated 19.04.1946

between Marappa Reddy Bayanna, S/o. Ramanna and Marapppa Reddy

Buddanna, S/o.Lakshmanna, vide document No.123 of 1946 relating to the

land in Survey No. 235, in an extent of Ac.4.82 cents, which refers as

Anantapur Sub-Division, 2) Another document No.4383 of 1957, a settlement

deed dated 07.12.1957 between Patilu Noora Reddy gari Basi Reddy, Son of

Kadiri Reddy, and Konduru Bayappa Reddy, Son of Buddanna; 3) Copies of

9

plaint and written statement in O.S.No.39 of 2007 before the Family Court-

cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur (between M.Narmada

and K.Ramakrsihna Reddy and Ushadevi), which was ended in compromise

and disposed of on 19.02.2010. 4) A copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 04 of 2022

filed on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anantapuramu, filed by

K.Ramakrishna Reddy/appellant against Konduru Gopinath Reddy, Venkata

Lakshmi, Patel Rani, and Patel Anusha/ the petitioners herein. The said suit

is filed seeking for permanent injunction restraining interference. 5) A copy of

the Plaint in O.S. No. 25 of 2022 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge,

Anantapuram, filed by the petitioners herein against the K.Ramakrishna

Reddy/appellant/defendant, seeking partition of the properties.

11. Perused the material placed on record. Thoughtful consideration is

given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

12. Now the points that arise for determination in this application are-

1) Whether the petitioners in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 are proper and

necessary parties and whether they can be permitted to be added as

respondents parties No.2 and 3, to enter in the appeal in A.S.No.160

of 2013?

2) What is the result of the application?

10

Presidential guidance:-

13. [i] In Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal

1

, which was a case where a suit was

initiated for specific performance of contract of sale by the purchaser against

the vendor, whether a stranger or third party to a contract claiming

independent title and possession over the contracted property, is entitled to be

added as a party was the question. Scope of Order I Rule 10 and Section 19

of Specific Relief Act, 1963 was elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court relevant for the

purpose of the present application, can be found from paragraphs 11, 14, 16,

17 and 22, which reads as follows. :

“11. As noted hereinearlier, two tests are required to be satisfied to

determine the question who is a necessary party, let us now consider who is

a proper party in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. For

deciding the question who is a proper party in a suit for specific performance

the guiding principle is that the presence of such a party is necessary to

adjudicate the controversies involved in the suit for specific performance of

the contract for sale. Thus, the question is to be decided keeping in mind the

scope of the suit. The question that is to be decided in a suit for specific

performance of the contract for sale is to the enforceability of the contract

entered into between the parties to the contract. If the person seeking

addition is added in such a suit, the scope of the suit for specific

performance would be enlarged and it would be practically converted into a

suit for title. Therefore, for effective adjudication of the controversies involved

in the suit, presence of such parties cannot be said to be necessary at all.

Lord Chancellor Cottenham in Tasker v. Small [(1834) 40 ER 848 : 3 My &

Cr 63] made the following observations: (ER pp. 850-51)

1

(2005) 6 SCC 733

11

“It is not disputed that, generally, to a bill for a specific

performance of a contract of sale, the parties to the contract only

are the proper parties; and, when the ground of the jurisdiction of

Courts of Equity in suits of that kind is considered it could not

properly be otherwise. The Court assumes jurisdiction in such

cases, because a court of law, giving damages only for the non-

performance of the contract, in many cases does not afford an

adequate remedy. But, in equity, as well as at law, the contract

constitutes the right, and regulates the liabilities of the parties; and

the object of both proceedings is to place the party complaining as

nearly as possible in the same situation as the defendant had

agreed that he should be placed in. It is obvious that persons,

strangers to the contract, and, therefore, neither entitled to the

right, nor subject to the liabilities which arise out of it, are as much

strangers to a proceeding to enforce the execution of it as they are

to a proceeding to recover damages for the breach of it.”

14. Keeping the principles as stated above in mind, let us now, on

the admitted facts of this case, first consider whether Respondents

1 and 4 to 11 are necessary parties or not. In our opinion,

Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are not necessary parties as an

effective decree could be passed in their absence as they had not

purchased the contracted property from the vendor after the

contract was entered into. They were also not necessary parties

as they would not be affected by the contract entered into between

the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3. In the case of Anil Kumar

Singh v. Shivnath Mishra [(1995) 3 SCC 147] , it has been held

that since the applicant who sought for his addition is not a party to

the agreement for sale, it cannot be said that in his absence, the

dispute as to specific performance cannot be decided. In this case

at para 9, the Supreme Court while deciding whether a person is a

necessary party or not in a suit for specific performance of a

contract for sale made the following observation: (SCC p. 150)

“Since the respondent is not a party to the agreement of sale, it

cannot be said that without his presence the dispute as to specific

performance cannot be determined. Therefore, he is not a

necessary party.”

(emphasis supplied)

……

16. That apart, from a plain reading of the expression used in sub-

rule (2) Order 1 Rule 10 CPC “all the questions involved in the suit”

it is abundantly clear that the legislature clearly meant that the

controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be

gone into only, that is to say, controversies with regard to the right

12

which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the

other and not the controversies which may arise between the

plaintiff-appellant and the defendants inter se or questions between

the parties to the suit and a third party. In our view, therefore, the

court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert

a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a

complicated suit for title between the plaintiff-appellant on one hand

and Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 on the

other. This addition, if allowed, would lead to a complicated litigation

by which the trial and decision of serious questions which are totally

outside the scope of the suit would have to be gone into. As the

decree of a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, if

passed, cannot, at all, affect the right, title and interest of

Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 in respect of the contracted property

and in view of the detailed discussion made hereinearlier,

Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 would not, at all, be necessary to be

added in the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for

sale.

17. [Ed.: Para 17 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.

F.3/Ed.B.J./78/2005 dated 5-9-2005.] . It is difficult to conceive that

while deciding the question as to who is in possession of the

contracted property, it would be open to the court to decide the

question of possession of a third party or a stranger as first the lis to

be decided is the enforceability of the contract entered into between

the appellant and Respondent 3 and whether contract was

executed by the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3 for sale of the

contracted property, whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to

perform their part of the contract and whether the appellant is

entitled to a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale

against Respondents 2 and 3. Secondly in that case, whoever

asserts his independent possession of the contracted property has

13

to be added in the suit, then this process may continue without a

final decision of the suit. Apart from that, the intervener must be

directly and legally interested in the answers to the controversies

involved in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale.

In Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd. [(1956) 1 All ER 273 :

(1956) 1 QB 357 : (1956) 2 WLR 372] it has been held that a

person is legally interested in the answers to the controversies only

if he can satisfy the court that it may lead to a result that will affect

him legally.

……..

22. For the reasons aforesaid, in our view, the stranger to the

contract, namely, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 making claim

independent and adverse to the title of Respondents 2 and 3 are

neither necessary nor proper parties, and therefore, not entitled to

join as party-defendants in the suit for specific performance of

contract for sale.”

By referring to the Kasturi's case [cited 1 supra], even the

petitioners herein claimed that they can be permitted to come on record as

their presence would enable the Court to settle all the questions in dispute,

effectively and sufficiently.

[ii] In Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson

2

, while

considering the scope of Order I Rule 10 and in respect of prayer for

impleadment of subsequent transferee of the suit property, where alienation

has taken place despite injunction orders and examining doctrine of ‘Dominus

Litis’ by referring to Kasturi’s case (cited 1 supra) and certain other

2

(2020) 13 SCC 773

14

judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in a Suit for Specific

Performance of a contract, a person who is not a party to the agreement

cannot implead that too against the wish of the plaintiff, vide para 6 of the

judgment. It was a case wherein an application filed by the third party for

impleadment on the ground that he has purchased the suit property claiming

that he is necessary and proper party, and has direct interest in the suit

property, which was also allowed by the Trial Court. When the same was

questioned in the Writ Petition, the said order of the Trial Court allowing the

impleadment was quashed and the review was also dismissed. Hon'ble Apex

Court approved the findings of the Higher Court. The observations made in

para 7 of the judgment are as follows: -

“7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are in

complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No

interference of this Court is called for. The appellant cannot be impleaded

as a defendant in the suit for specific performance of the contract between

the original plaintiffs and original Defendant 1 against the wish of the

plaintiffs. Accordingly, the present appeals stand dismissed. However, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs.”

14. Apart from the precedential guidance mentioned above, the facts

relevant are that –

[i] The petitioners/proposed respondents are claiming

independent right.

15

[ii] The petitioners/proposed respondents have already filed

another suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2022.

[iii] There is another suit filed by the defendant against the

petitioners herein/proposed respondents and others in O.S. No. 4 of

2022.

[iv] The scope of enquiry in a suit for specific performance of an

agreement is substantially between the plaintiff and the defendant.

[v] Plaintiff is dominus litis.

15. Upon considering the factual and legal position referred above, point

No.1 is answered against the petitioners concluding that the impleadment of

the petitioners herein is not necessary in the present proceedings.

Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Point No.2:-

16. Accordingly, the I.A. is dismissed.

____________________

JUSTICE D. RAMESH

___________________________________

JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

Date: 16 .09.2026

Pnr

16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025

IN

APPEAL SUIT NO.160 OF 2013

16.09.2026

Pnr