PALEPU BHARAT BABU Vs. PALLEBOINA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.72 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, which herein after will be referred as trial Court in I.A.No.800 of 2017 dtd. 12/3/2020, where under the request of the petitioner to add one A.Kotireddy, who is shown as 7th respondent in the interlocutory application as defendant No.7 to the main suit was dismissed, the petitioner filed the present revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(2.) As could be seen from the material placed before this Court, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.72 of 2015 for the relief of perpetual injunction and to declare the title of the petitioner as well as for cancellation of sale deed document No.1629 of 2002 which was executed in favour of the 3rd respondent/defendant No.3. In fact the suit was filed initially for the purpose of injunction, but subsequently the suit relief was amended. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.800 of 2017 under Order I Rule 10 (2) r/w Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code with a prayer to add respondent No.7 as 7th defendant to the suit.

(3.) As per the plaint averments and also the averments made in the affidavit, it was the case of petitioner that his grand father by name Veerabhadraiah and one Mangapathi Rao have divided the properties by virtue of final decree in I.A.No.199 of 1969 in O.S.No.24 of 1963. As per the said final decree, the grand father of the petitioner got five (5) plots shown as Plot Nos.1 to 5 and said Mangapathi Rao also got five (5) plots which were identified as Plot Nos.A to E. The petitioner has claimed that during the life time, his grand father has executed a will and by virtue of the said will, the petitioner got an extent of Ac.0-75 gts in Plot No.3, Ac.0-28 gts in Plot No.4 and Ac.0-18 gts in Plot No.1. He has further claimed that on 23/2/2009, when he was present and clearing the bushes in Plot No.3, there was an interference with his possession by the 3rd defendant. He was informed that 3rd defendant purchased the plot thereby, he filed the above referred suit. The petitioner has further claimed that the defendant who tried to interfere with his possession purchased the land from K.Venkata Rama Rao, who is the son of above referred Mangapathi Rao. In fact Mangapathi Rao got five plots which are shown as Plot Nos.A to E, thereby, the 3rd defendant cannot acquire any right over Plot No.3 or Plot No.4.