PODELLY CHINNA CHINNANNA Vs. BANDARI PEDDA BHUMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case, arising out of a reference made by one of us (Justice B. Prakash Rao), involves a question of law as to whether a person holding Genera! Power of Attorney on behalf of a party to the suit can be examined as a witness on its behalf.

(2.) Before dwelling into the question, the facts in brief are that this revision is filed at the instance of the defendant No.10 aggrieved against the orders rejecting an application filed by him under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission to prosecute the case through his General Power of Attorney, who is none other than his own son.

(3.) The respondent filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/1Oth share in the schedule properties, claiming that he along with the defendants 1 to 9 are joint purchasers and the defendant No.10 is in illegal occupation in collusion with them and constructed a house and the other defendants 11 to 13 are illegal encroachers without any valid purchase. The defendants 1 to 9 admitted the joint purchase but however attributed mischief against the plaintiff in pursuing the layout and permission from the concerned authorities. The petitioner (defendant No.10) along with defendants 11 and 12 claimed purchase under regular deeds and construction of houses. Similar is the claim on behalf of the defendant No.13.