ALLAM RAMU Vs. YELAKACHERLA NARASIMHULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/plaintiff invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in assailing the correctness of the docket order passed by the Junior civil Judge, Chittoor in O.S. (SR) No.2717 of 2007 dated 03-08-2007, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs for injunction has been returned directing them to present the suit in the proper court while fixing the notional value based on the market value of the properties.

(2.) The facts giving rise to filing this revision as stated in the plaint are as under: The 1st plaintiff entered into possessory sale agreement with the defendant on 26-08-2006 for an amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- and paid an advance of Rs.9,00,000/- under two cheques dated 26-08-2006 for Rs.3,50,000/- each and Rs.2,00,000/- cash. On receipt of the said amount the defendant delivered the vacant possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. The defendant previously sold item No. 2 of plaint schedule property to one Merugu Rajeswara Rao on 26-08-2006 for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by receiving an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration and executed possessory sale agreement in his favour and delivered possession. Subsequently the said Merugu Rajeswara Rao approached the 2nd plaintiff and offered to sell the said property for an amount of Rs.50,01,000/- for which the 2nd plaintiff agreed to enter into possessory agreement on 02-12-2006 with him with the consent and knowledge of the defendant and paid an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- towards advance sale consideration and entered into possession of the said property. Subsequently the 2nd plaintiff made payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 30-12-2006 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 28-01-2006 which has been endorsed by the defendant. When the Sub-Registrar of Chittoor refused to register the plaint schedule property, the defendant filed W.P.No.10233 of 2003, which is pending. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the Sub-Registrar to get the sale deeds registered against the same property; when he refused to do so, the plaintiff approached the High Court by filing W.P.No.2954 of 2007 and 6758 of 2007 and obtained directions.

(3.) After obtaining the directions from the High Court when the plaintiffs approached the Sub-Registrar to register the regular sale deeds in their favour and applied for valuation certificate for preparation of sale deeds, the Sub- Registrar, Chittoor again refused to so and issued valuation certification by mentioning the market value of the plaint schedule property as Rs.0/- dated 26- 05-2007. Meanwhile, when the defendant by suppressing the fact of above said two possessory sale agreements trying to alienate the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs got issued legal notices through their counsel on 21-05-2007 with the demands not to alienate the plaint schedule property to third parties and calling upon the defendant to register the regular sale deeds in their favour. The said notices were returned with an endorsement "continuously absent". Upon which the plaintiffs got published a public notice in Eenadu daily bringing the above facts. Hence, they filed the above suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and heirs from alienating the plaint schedule properties to the third parties by way of sale, gift etc. and valued the suit for computation of court-fees and jurisdiction under Section 50(1) of the A.P. Court-fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"). On office raising objections the lower court passed the aforementioned order, which is impugned in the present revision.