KARRE NARSIMULU Vs. GADDAMIDI SIDDAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was directed against the order dated 12.10.2020 passed in I.A.No.777 of 2019 in A.S.No.20 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge, Medak, wherein and whereby the appellate Court dismissed the said I.A. filed by the petitioner seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

(2.) The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, in nutshell, are that respondent herein filed O.S.No.74 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medak, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein and others from interfering with the land in Sy.No.30/AA admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas of Chegunta village. The case of the respondent being the plaintiff in the said suit was that he purchased the suit schedule property from one G.Muthyalu through registered document No.1865/2008 dated 22.7.2008 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, since the petitioner herein and others are trying to interfere with his possession over the said property without any manner of right, he filed the suit seeking permanent injunction. The petitioner herein and three others filed written statement stating that one Ramaiah was the original owner of the suit land to an extent of Ac.3-12 guntas in Sy.No.30 out of which he sold Ac.0-10 gunts each to the petitioner and other defendants in the suit through ordinary sale deed and the sale was regularized by Tahsildar, Chegunta after recording the statement of said Ramaiah under Section 13-B, vide proceeding No.B/4694/05. The petitioner further stated that subsequently the property was transferred in the name of Muthyalu S/o Ramaiah. The respondent herein, having fully known about the execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner by Ramaiah, got executed the sale deed in his favour from said Muthyalu.

(3.) The trial Court, after framing appropriate issues, recording evidence on both sides and hearing learned counsel on both sides, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent herein granting permanent injunction.