M. Thirumala Reddy & Ors vs Nallani Venkata Naidu N Venkata Narayana & Ors

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J

1. Heard Sri V. Nitish, Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Sri M. Karibasaiah, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.419 of 2025.

2. Following are the details of the present Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The Revision Petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs in O.S.No.271 of 2013; that the said suit was filed seeking to declare the ex parte Decree and Judgment dated 12.08.2011 in O.S.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur with regard to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property as null and void on the ground that the first defendant in O.S.No.271 of 2013 had obtained the above mentioned Decree in collusion with the Defendant No.2 in the present suit by playing fraud on the Court as well as the Plaintiffs.

4. The facts emerging from the record in these three Civil Revision Petitions are that an Agreement of Sale dated 02.04.2010, was purported to have been executed by the Defendant No.2 namely Sri M. Prakash Naidu in favour of the Defendant No.1 namely Sri Nallani Venkata Naidu @ N.Venkata Narayana without there being any manner of right, title or possession over the subject property covered in O.S.No.48 of 2011; that the Defendant No.1 had filed a suit against the Defendant No.2 herein bearing O.S.No.48 of 2011 for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 02.04.2010 that vide ex parte Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2011, the suit filed by Sri Nallani Venkata Naidu @ N. Venkata Narayana against Sri M. Prakash Naidu was decreed; that 10 days prior to filing of the present suit bearing O.S.NO.271 of 2013, the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners in the suit schedule property was disturbed by the Defendant No.1 on the ground that he has purchased an extent of Ac.0.07 ½ cents in the same survey number; that the said Ac.0.07 ½ cents is covered under E.P.No.223 of 2011 in O.S.No.48 of 2011; that by virtue of the Order passed in E.P.No.223 of 2011, the Defendant No.1 had obtained Sale Deed from the Civil Court; that the Agreement of Sale and Decree dated 12.08.2011 in O.S.No.48 of 2011 and E.P.No.223 of 2011 were obtained by fraud and in collusion with each other by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

5. The facts would also emerge to the effect that the Revision Petitioners herein have purchased the subject land vide Registered Sale Deed dated 26.03.2013 for a valuable consideration of Rs.29,04,000/- under Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.3840 of 2013; that while the suit proceedings were in progress, the Revision Petitioners came to know that the Defendants/Respondents herein have obtained electricity connection for the shed erected by the Defendant No.1; that the Plaintiffs herein have filed I.A.No.363 of 2024 in O.S.No.271 of 2013 under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to re-open the suit and to summon the Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation and the Asst. Engineer, APSPDCL, Anantapur. The Petitioners also had filed I.A.No.364 of 2014 in O.S.No.271 of 2013 under Order 16 rule 15 of the CPC to summon the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Anantapur with all records with regard to allotment of Door Nos.6/178 and 6/176. The Petitioner has also filed I.A.No.365 of 2014 in O.S.No.271 of 2013 under Order 16 Rule 15 read with 151 of the C.P.C., to summon the Asst. Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Anantapur with all the records concerning HSC No.7111201091901. It was contended that the Decree was obtained by the Defendant No.1 against the Defendant No.2 in the collusive suit bearing O.S.No.48 of 2011; that the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2011 in O.S.No.48 of 2011 is nullity in the eye of law since the same has been obtained by practicing fraud. The Respondents herein are contesting the suit bearing O.S.No.271 of 2013.

6. The Respondent/Defendants also have contested all the three I.A.Nos.363, 364 and 365 of 2024 in O.S.No.271 of 2013 contending that the Petitions filed by the Petitioners may not be entertained by the trial Judge for examining the Municipal Commissioner and the Asst. Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L on the ground that no useful purpose would be served. It is contended that the trial Court, vide Proceeding in I.A.Nos.363, 364 and 365 of 2024 was pleased to dismiss the above I.As filed by the Plaintiff vide separate Orders dated 10.12.2024.

7. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners that the property purchased by the Petitioners herein and the property purchased by the Defendant No.1 from the Defendant No.2 is entirely different, whereas, the Respondents herein are playing fraud on the Court by mentioning the wrong property.

8. As it can be seen from the record that the Revision Petitioners intend to prove that the electricity connection was obtained by the Plaintiff way-back in the year 2005 that is on 18.10.2005, whereas, even according to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant No.1 had purchased the property from the Defendant No.2 only in the month of February-2013. It is submitted that in this view of the matter by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the Defendants/Respondents herein could have obtained any electricity connection for the same premises on two different occasions.

9. This Court has perused the I.A.Nos.363, 364, 365 of 2024 in O.S.No.271 of 2013. The Affidavit filed in support of these three Applications is a stereo type one with barely three Paragraphs. Except the changes with respect to the relief sought, elementary facts for the purpose of understanding as to why the Petitioner has filed the Applications and what he is seeking through it is not at all explained. Admittedly, the Defendant/Respondent No.1 had obtained an ex parte Decree of Specific Performance against the Defendant No.2 and got the Decree executed through Execution Proceedings. The Plaintiffs/Petitioners herein has averred in the plaint that the suit bearing O.S.No.48 of 2011 is a collusive and a fraudulent one and therefore the ex parte decree and the consequential registration of the suit schedule property in favour of the Defendant No.1 would not effect the rights of the Plaintiffs/Revision Petitioners herein.

ANALYSIS:

10. From the impugned order, this Court has noticed that the adducing of evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is complete and the suit is posted for arguments on 15.10.2024. The purpose for which the Plaintiffs have filed the Interlocutory Applications has not been stated by the Plaintiffs/Revision Petitioners. This apart, the Plaintiffs/Revision Petitioners had made an Application way back on 30.01.2020 to cancel the service connection granted in favour of the Defendant No.1. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Judge, had also noted in the order that the Plaintiffs/Revision Petitioners herein had already made an Application for cancellation of electricity connection way back on 30.01.2020. Whereas, the present Interlocutory Application is filed seeking to examine the Asst. Engineer, APSPDCL and the Municipal Corporation of Anantapur Municipality on 15.10.2024.

11. Admittedly, the Defendant No.2 has registered the suit schedule property in favour of the Defendant No.1 on the direction of the Executing Court inasmuch as the Defendant No.1 had obtained an ad interim ex parte decree against the Defendant No.2 in a suit filed for Specific Performance bearing O.S.No.48 of 2011. It goes without saying that the subsequent electricity connection obtained by the Defendant No.1 and also the mutation of Revenue Record and Municipal Record are both inevitable consequences of ex parte decree as well as the order in O.S.No.48 of 2011 passed by the Executing Court. The present situation is that, rightly or wrongly, there is an ex parte decree in favour of the Defendant No.1 and that the Plaintiffs have approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.271 of 2013, diligently seeking to set aside ex parte decree dated 12.08.2011 in O.S.No.48 of 2011. It is contended by the Plaintiffs clearly and categorically in the plaint that the Plaintiff and the Defendant in O.S.No.48 of 2011 are strangers to the property and that the vendor of the Plaintiffs in the suit (O.S.No.271 of 2013) had legitimately inherited for himself in a partition.

12. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the present Civil Revision Petitions are bereft of any merit for the reasons stated herein above. It is clarified that this Court has not given any findings on merit and that the observations made hereinabove shall only be confined to the present order and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial judge.

13. Accordingly, this batch of Civil Revision Petitions is dismissed. No order as to costs.

14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.