CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY T Vs. BALAKRISHNA MOORTHV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the correctness of the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, in I.A.No. 1553 of 1998 in O.S.No. 725 of 1996, dated 07-02-2000, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, seeking amendment of the pleadings and permit him to seek the relief of title apart from the other reliefs sought for in the suit, the present Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the suit schedule land under an agreement of sale, dated 15-07-1984, from one T. Balakrishna Moorthy and was put in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement of sale. When the said T. Balakrishna Moorthy has not executed the regular sale deed and when Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession, he filed O.S.No. 725 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi; Chittoor District, seeking specific performance of the agreement, dated 15-07-1984, and also sought for a permanent injunction. It is also not in dispute that he obtained a temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with his possession. While the said T. Balakrishna Moorthy did not file any written statement, even after receipt of the notice, the other respondents filed written statements contending that the land belongs to one Sri Hathiramji Mutt and they occupied the same long back and brought the same to cultivation by reclaiming it and the said T. Balakrishna Moorthy has no title to the property to be conveyed to the petitioner herein. After the written statements were filed, the petitioner filed the present I.A.No. 1553 of 1998, seeking amendment of the pleadings and also seeking additional relief of declaration of title apart from the other reliefs sought for. But, unfortunately, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, without understanding the case from its proper perspective, dismissed the same by making the following observation:

(3.) I have no hesitation to observe that the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor, completely misdirected himself to the facts of the present case. From the above factual narration, it is seen that the petitioner filed the present suit seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale against one T. Balakrishna Moorthy, who did not choose to file any written statement. When the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are trying to interfere with his possession contending that the land in question originally belongs to one Sri Hathiramji Mutt and they occupied the same long back and brought the same to cultivation by reclaiming it and that the said T. Balakrishna Moorthy has no title to the property in question to be conveyed to the petitioner herein, he sought for mandatory injunction against them.