AVULA SATHAIAH Vs. AVLA LINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this revision is whether the unregistered sale deed dated 30-10-1993, sought to be marked can be received and admitted in the evidence.

(2.) Originally the suit was filed for permanent injunction. During the trial, the defendant No.1 sought for receipt and admission of an unregistered sale deed dated 30-10-1993 to substantiate the averments made in the written statement. Upon the same being objected by the plaintiff, the trial Court having considered the arguments advanced by both the parties, disallowed the said unregistered sale deed dated 30-10-1993 to be received and admitted into evidence, upholding the objection raised by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said finding, the present revision is filed by the defendant No.3. The parties herein shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking assigned to them in the suit.

(3.) The plaint averments are necessary to be looked into and they are in brief as follows :-The plaintiff purchased the suit land from defendant No.3 Avula Sataiah through an agreement of sale dated 22-9-1984 and on the same day paid an amount of Rs.9,000.00 as sale consideration to D-3 Sataiah vendor and possession was delivered to him. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. His name as well as his ownership was recorded in the revenue records. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the M.R.O. Ramannapet conducted an enquiry under the R.O.R. Act and issued a certificate under S. 13 (b) under the said Act; that he has been paying the land revenue also and thus he has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule land and; that the defendants who are in no way connected with the suit schedule property had interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment by trying to encroach upon a portion of the suit schedule land, the present suit is filed.