MERUGUMALA RAVI KUMAR Vs. MERUGU RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the order, dtd. 17/11/2014 passed in I.A. No. 320 of 2014 in O.S. No. 62 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, whereby the petition filed by him under Order XL Rule 1 and Sec. 151 of CPC seeking to appoint Receiver to take possession of the schedule property, to auction the lease hold rights every year and to deposit the proceeds into the Court pending disposal of the suit, was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant being the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 62 of 2013 for declaration to declare him as absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and also for relief of possession.

(3.) The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, is that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1, out of love and affection settled land to an extent of Ac. 1-88 cents in R.S. Nos. 50/1 and 50/2 (Ac. 1-03 cents in R.S. No. 50/1 and Ac. 0-85 cents in R.S. No. 50/2), Rajupeta Village, Pedapadu Mandal in favour of the appellant/plaintiff under registered settlement deed, dtd. 27/10/1998. Since the appellant/plaintiff was minor, his junior maternal grandfather and maternal uncle acted as his guardians. The appellant/plaintiff was born on 2/6/1992 and he attained the age of majority on 2/6/2010. From the date of execution of settlement deed appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The junior maternal grandfather and maternal uncle of the appellant/plaintiff got the land cultivated till he returned to Rajupeta. While so, in view of the hostile attitude of the respondents/defendants, the appellant/plaintiff verified with Sub-Registrar Office, Vatluru and noticed that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1, without any lawful right or authority executed cancellation deed, dtd. 7/9/1999 and pursuant to execution of said cancellation deed, respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 executed settlement deed, dtd. 22/4/2006 in favour of respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 in respect of land to a total extent of Ac. 2-15 cents (Ac. 1-03 cents in R.S. No. 50/1 and Ac. 1-12 cents in R.S. No. 50/2 of Rajupeta village). Respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 in turn executed sale deed, dtd. 24/12/2009 in favour of respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3 in respect of land to a total extent of 1-15 cents (Ac. 0-03 cents in R.S. No. 50/1 and Ac. 1-12 cents in R.S. No. 50/2 of Rajupeta Village). In the plaint it was further averred that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 has no authority to cancel the settlement deed executed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and to execute settlement deed in favour of respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2. Thus, the suit was filed.