THONDURI CHENGA REDDY Vs. CHILLAKURU CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an Order dated 14-2-2005 passed in I.A.No.30 of 2004 in A.S.No.17 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore district. None appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice through Court as well as by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.114 of 1995 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, which was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for past and future rents. The respondent-defendant filed a written statement resisting the suit and stating that it is true that the plaint schedule land is the ancestral land of the plaintiff. However, he stated that he purchased the said land under an agreement of sale dated 8-6-1985 executed by the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration of Rs.8,000/-. The said agreement of sale was duly attested by N. Jagannadha Reddy and E. Krishna Reddy and since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as an absolute owner and not as a tenant of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit itself, the respondent-defendant filed a petition in I.A.No.231 of 1996 seeking amendment of the written statement. The respondent-defendant also stated that since the price of the land has been increased, the plaintiff demanded him to pay Rs.4,000/-, but he refused. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer alleging that he has not executed the sale deed and sought for cancellation of the mutation effected in his name. After enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders and such orders cannot be questioned in the suit (now it is brought to the notice of this Court that against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the matter was carried in appeal and the same was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further this was confirmed in the revision by the District Collector). However, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal being A.S.No.17 of 2003. The appeal had come up for hearing on 10-3-2004 and it was adjourned to 17-3-2004. At that stage, the present I.A.No.30 of 2004 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit the defendant to amend the pleadings in the written statement for the second time before the appellate Court, i.e. to add the following paragraphs.

(3.) The said I.A.No.30 of 2004 was heard in March/2004, but orders were delivered on 14-2-2005 allowing the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is interesting to notice that during the trial, D.W.2 deposed that the defendant purchased the suit schedule lands from P.W.1 on 8-6-1985 and Ex.B7 was executed and he was present at the time of execution of Ex.B7. On that day, D.W.1 paid Rs.8,000/- to P.W.1 towards sale consideration of the suit schedule lands. He also signed as one of the attestors in Ex.B7. One Krishnareddy, P.W.1, D.W.1 and another person brought by P.W.1 were present at the time of execution of agreement of sale. After execution of Ex.B7, they went to the plaint schedule property and it was measured and handed over by P.W.1 to D.W.1. Since then D.W.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.