CHANNAKRISHNAPPA Vs. M. JAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Petitioner's counsel.

(2.) This matter is listed for admission. The order impugned in this revision petition is rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a and d) r/w Sec. 151 of CPC.

(3.) The main contention urged in the application before the trial Court by this defendant who is the defendant No.21 that, he had purchased the property from defendant No.20 who is the power of attorney holder of defendant Nos.1 to 19 and also it is his contention that defendant Nos.1 to 19 have also executed consent deed in respect of the sale deed and he had purchased the same for valuable sale consideration and the very suit filed against him for the relief of specific performance by the plaintiff has to be rejected against the defendant No.21 and the same is barred by law and also no cause of action. It is also contended that plaintiff and 20th defendant have colluded and created the agreement filed before the Court only with an intention to knock off the compensation amount and property and also contend that plaintiff has already executed a consent agreement holder and received the huge amount and also in view of amendment of LAO Act, the agreement holder/GPA holder shall not entitled to receive the amount from Land Acquisition Authority and hence he is not entitled for any relief.