(1.) This revision has been referred to a Division Bench by Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J. by order dated 26-2-1991 as he considered that the decision rendered by Kodandaramayya, J. in T. China Panduranga Rao v. B. Venkatap-paiah, (1986) 1 APLJ (Short Notes) 78 requires reconsideration. We shall first mention how the point arises and then refer to the conflicting views expressed by the two learned Judges.
(2.) The petitioner before us is the plaintiff. The suit -- OS No. 95 of 1980 -- was filed initially in the Court of the District Munsif, Chintalapudi, West Godavary, and was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif s Court, Eluru, and was registered as OS No. 23 of 1985. The suit for specific performance was based on an agreement dated 25-11-1975 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant contended that the suit agreement was got executed by the plaintiff by playing fraud and misrepresentation on him. The third defendant is claiming under an earlier agreement of sale dated 26-5-1975 pursuant to which it is stated that the registered sale deed was executed on 16-7-1980 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. Defendants 2 and 3 contended that they are bona fide purchasers and that, at any rate, without notice of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the above said pleadings, the Court framed five issues for consideration which are as follows:
(3.) The learned District Munsiff referred to the decision of Kondandaramayya, J. in China Panduranga Rao's case (1 supra) which was relied upon for the plaintiff but distinguished the same on the ground that the petitioner had not reserved his right to adduce any rebuttal evidence and that it is not his case that he has not at all adduced any evidence on issues 1 and 2. The Court also observed that the petitioner had, in fact, adduced evidence on issues 1 and 2. The petition was accordingly dismissed. It is against the said order that this revision petition has been filed.