( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the Order dated 29-06-2000 passed by the learned senior Civil Judge, Addanki, in C. M. A. No. 15 of 1997. He is the first respondent therein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the appellants therein.

( 2 ) IT is expedient here to refer the parties as they were originally arrayed in the suit as well as the concomitant petition filed in i. A. No. 70 of 1997 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner- plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with his peaceful possession. The petitioner purchased the suit land more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint under a registered Sale Deed dated 10-07-1981 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 15,000. 00 from the first respondent, who is the owner thereof. He claims to have been in possession of the same since the date of the purchase and has been raising crops thereon. He has been paying the land revenue payable over it to the government. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 15,000. 00 an amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 was needed for discharging the debt owed by the first respondent to the Union Bank of india. Santharavuru Branch, which obtained a decree against the first respondent and filed E. P. No. 8 of 1987 in o. S. No. 306 of 1980 on the file of the sub-Court, Chirala, in execution thereof. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first and third respondents admitted the title and possession of the petitioner in the said execution proceedings and the fact that he raised the Bengalgram crop on the suit land.

( 3 ) THE first respondent resisted the petition by filing a detailed counter and the third respondent adopted the same by filing a memo. Their case was that the suit land was mortgaged to the Union Bank of India and that the Bank obtained a decree for realising the debt against the first respondent in O. S. No. 306 of 1980. In the execution Petition filed pursuant to the decree, a Receiver had been appointed who took possession of the suit schedule property and auctioned the crop existing on the land. It is their further case that when the Bank also sought for the auction of the land for recovery of its debt the first respondent sold away the suit land in favour of the third respondent under an agreement of sale dated 22-07-1996 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 60,000. 00 and the third respondent in turn discharged the debt due to the Bank and the land was delivered to him on the date of the agreement of sale itself. The first respondent denied of having executed the Registered sale Deed dated 10-07-1981 in favour of the petitioner.

( 4 ) AT the time of the enquiry, Exs. A-1 to a-7 were got marked on the side of the petitioner and Exs. B-1 to B-7 were got marked on the side of the contesting respondents.

( 5 ) THE learned Principal District Munsif, addanki, after considering the evidence on record and after having heard on either side, allowed that petition while holding that the petitioner established his prima facie case and balance of convenience was also in his favour. Inter alia in para 7 of his order, the learned Principal District Munsif observed that even assuming on the basis of exs. B-4 to B-7 that the first respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in view of Ex. A-l, the possession of the first respondent was not lawful, according to law. However, the learned Principal District Munsif has come to a clear conclusion that in view of ex. A-l the petitioner has good title and the balance of convenience also is in his favour.

( 6 ) HAVING been aggrieved by the said order, the contesting respondents carried the matter in appeal before the Senior Civil judge, Addanki in C. M. A. No. 15 of 1997. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has upset the finding of the lower Court and allowed the appeal. The appellate court has come to a conclusion th