VANUKURU KOTESWARA RAO Vs. SATYAVOLU MADHUKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A few facts are necessary for a proper consideration of the issue raised in this Civil Revision Petition. The 2nd respondent herein had purchased the property under dispute from one of her brothers under a Registered Deed of Sale dtd. 13/10/2005. Thereafter, she executed a Registered Deed of Gift dtd. 16/6/2009 in favour of her son, who is the 1st respondent herein.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.179 of 2009 against the 2nd respondent and subsequently added the 1st respondent. This suit was filed for specific performance of a possessory agreement of sale dtd. 13/10/2005 and alternatively, for refund of the consideration paid under the agreement of sale along with interest. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.305 of 2009 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada which was transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada and renumbered as O.S.No.226 of 2010. This suit was filed against the petitioner herein, for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner and persons claiming through him, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the 1st respondent over the property under dispute. Both the suits were tried together and both the suits were dismissed by a Judgment dtd. 28/4/2014. In this Judgment, the trial Judge disbelieved the possessory agreement of sale dtd. 13/10/2005 and subsequent payments and dismissed the suit. Similarly the trial Judge came to the view that the petitioner was in possession of the property in dispute and 1st respondent was not in possession of the property under dispute, and dismissed the suit, filed for injunction. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.83 of 2015 against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.179 of 2009 before the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada.

(3.) The respondents herein have filed a fresh suit, O.S.No.318 of 2015 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, against the petitioner, for declaration of the title over the property and delivery of the possession of the same and for mesne profits for the years 2012-13 to 2014-15 and for future profits. This suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner had forcibly occupied the suit schedule property during the pendency of O.S.No.179 of 2009 and O.S.No.226 of 2010.