SHAIK ASHA Vs. SHAIK MOULAALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Adinarayana, representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners.

(2.) This Court ordered notice before admission on 29-4-2005 and R-1 was served. R-2 and R-3 were shown as not necessary parties.

(3.) Sri Adinarayana, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would contend that the revision petitioners/ defendants 3 and 4 moved an application in IA.No.6/2005 in OS.No.2/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. On behalf of the petitioners- minors, taking the plea of fraud and impersonation in execution of the mortgage deed. The counsel would submit that the defendants are entitled to take inconsistent pleas and even otherwise in the present case inasmuch as the court guardian filed a written statement. Court guardian was not informed with the proper facts at the relevant point of time and on verification of records it came to light that there is element of fraud and also impersonation involved in the execution of the said registered mortgage deed and hence inasmuch as minors' interest has to be protected this application was thought of.