( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India being aggrieved by an Order dated 14-2-2005 passed in I. A. No. 30 of 2004 in A. S. No. 17 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore district. None appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice through Court as well as by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 114 of 1995 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, which was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for past and future rents. The respondent-defendant filed a written statement resisting the suit and stating that it is true that the plaint schedule land is the ancestral land of the plaintiff. However, he stated that he purchased the said land under an agreement of sale dated 8-6-1985 executed by the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 8,000/ -. The said agreement of sale was duly attested by N. Jagannadha Reddy and E. Krishna Reddy and since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as an absolute owner and not as a tenant of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit itself, the respondent-defendant filed a petition in I. A. No. 231 of 1996 seeking amendment of the written statement. The respondent-defendant also stated that since the price of the land has been increased, the plaintiff demanded him to pay Rs. 4,000/-, but he refused. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer alleging that he has not executed the sale deed and sought for cancellation of the mutation effected in his name. After enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders and such orders cannot be questioned in the suit (now it is brought to the notice of this Court that against the order passed by the mandal Revenue Officer, the matter was carried in appeal and the same was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further this was confirmed in the revision by the District Collector ). However, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal being A. S. No. 17 of 2003. The appeal had come up for hearing on 10-3-2004 and it was adjourned to 17-3-2004. At that stage, the present i. A. No. 30 of 2004 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure to permit the defendant to amend the pleadings in the written statement for the second time before the appellate Court, i. e. to add the following paragraphs. "6 (a) Plaintiff has no locus standi to seek declaration of title or recovery of possession, eviction or arrears or rent. Title of the plaintiff suffered as extinction when the suit property as claimed by plaintiff in para 4 that the suit land was given to her tentatively for maintenance which fact, by the operation of Sec. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act transformed Lakshmamma to become the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and having thus matured into an absolute owner smt. P. Lakshmamma alone has the capacity, competency to recover possession. Title once thus acquired by operation of law cannot be extinguished by unilateral acts of parties resulting in the plaint schedule land being put to back in the possession of the plaintiff, which act of alleged putting in plaintiff in possession would not secured for plaintiff any right in the plaint schedule property. The compromise divorce decree may at best bring about the dissolution of the marriage. The decree concerned itself with the property as well and the decree is not registered before the Registrar of Assurances and by the bar contained in Section 17 of the Registration Act, consent and oral acts of parties cannot create title. Decree not being registered, the only manner in which plaintiff can secure title can only be by the execution in favour of the plaintiff of a relinquishment deed which advisedly procedure was not adopted. In law, the said Lakshmamma continues of the owner of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document