G S VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY Vs. RAGHUNATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed the revision challenging the order in I.A. No. 587 of 1990 alleging that the learned District Munsif has permitted the defendants to take inconsistent pleas in the additional written statement and such inconsistent pleas should be eschewed from consideration.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel submitted that in the written statement as originally filed, the plea taken was that the suit land is a Gramnatham-Poramboke and that the defendants are in possession of that Gramnatham Poramboke. But in the additional written statement, the defendants tried to introduce an additional plea that they have acquired a right to the suit property by virtue of an oral sale.

(3.) The learned District Munsif dismissed that petition holding that the order of the Court affording an opportunity to the defendants for filing additional written statement, has become final and that it is not open to the plaintiffs to pray for rejection of any portion of the additional written statement.