ANNAM MALLA REDDY Vs. BANGI NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been preferred by the defendant/appellant in A. S. No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs with separate possession contending that they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The first defendant remained ex parte and the second respondent, who is the appellant in the Appeal, appeared through his counsel and filed written statement disputing the claim of the petitioners and contended that after the death of the father of the D-1, D-2 and his brother Bhadraiah alienated their share of land in the suit survey number including the area covered by the road and subsequently D-1, his brother Bhadraiah and their elder brother's adopted son Nagaiah jointly executed an agreement of sale in favour of d-2 and after receiving an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as advance, he was put in possession of the suit land along with the share of Bhadraiah and since the date of sale, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was also recorded in the revenue records as possessor and entries were also made in the pahanies from 1979-80 to 08-07-1988.

(3.) THE Trial Court, after framing appropriate issues, considered the oral and documentary evidence and decreed the suit directing partition of the suit land among the sharers. Being aggrieved by the same, the second defendant, who is the petitioner herein, preferred A. S. No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Huzurabad. During the pendency of the Appeal, the petitioner filed i. A. No. 734 of 1994 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C. P. C. praying to permit him to file the ROR certificates as additional evidence in the Appeal and mark them as exhibits. The Appellate Court disposed of the Appeal through the Judgment, dated 30-07-1997 and the Revision Petitioner preferred S. A. No. 770 of 1997 on the file of the High Court. The High Court allowed the Appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal with a further direction to dispose of the matter at the earliest point of time.