( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 9-10-2000 passed by the trial court in LA. No. 614/2000 in O. S. No. 244/1996.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are defendants in the suit. They filed the present LA. under order 8 Rule 6-A of C. P. C. seeking the court to accept the counter-claim of cancellation of registered sale deed no. 3138/1977. The trial Court dismissed the same as not maintainable. Hence the revision. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per the ranking assigned to them in the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed for permanent injunction against the defendnats. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit land to an extent of Ac. 1-30 guntas each in Sy. No. 384 of Chintapally revenue village; that when the defendants were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property the present suit was filed for permanent injunction.

( 4 ) THE boundaries of the suit schedule property as narrated in the plaint is extracted as under:-"east : Tank Bund (kunta katta), west: Land of plaintiffs, north: Hillock and after that, land of pagadala Venkaiah. South: Tank (kunta) and the land of d-1 Rehabilitation S. No. 5/1. "

( 5 ) ON the other hand the defendants filed written statement inter alia stating that the suit property originally belonged to d-2 and he has been paying the land revenue to the Government and he got pattadar pass books and title deeds over the suit land in Sy. No,384 - bit 4/2 to an extent of Ac. 4. 00 guntas of wet land in his favour. It was admitted in the written statement that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the plaintiff over an extent of ac. 3. 20 guntas in Sy.-No. 384 but in bit no. 5/1 only but not in the suit schedule property as stated in the plaint. It is further stated that the plaintiffs father had purchased Ac. 3. 20 guntas of land from D-l in 1970 vide Bit No. 5/1 in Sy. No. 384 of chintapally village; that in fact the plaintiffs father had purchased Ac. 1. 20 guntas each in two bits in separate boundaries classified as dry; that the land revenue receipts filed by the plaintiff pertain to 5/1 bit only, but not bit No. 4/2 and, therefore, by showing these documents, the plaintiffs have been trying to interfere with the land of D-2 in bit no. 4/2 of Sy. No. 384. It is further stated tha in fact D-2 is having pattadar pass book and title deed and also D-Fo rm patta in his favour and he has been paying land revenue for the said land.

( 6 ) IN the written statement, the defendants have also given the boundaries of the suit schedule property. They are extracted as under:-"east: Kunta Katta west: Land of Kommu Pedda saidaiah and Kommu Yellaiah north: Hillock (yena) south: Kommu China Saidulu. "

( 7 ) FROM the above claim and counter-claim it is clear that the plaintiff s father purchased the land belonging to D-2 some where in 1977 under a registered sale deed. The said sale was for two different bits of land. Those two bits are situated in bit no. 5/1. But on the other hand the defendants claim in nutshell is that though the plaintiffs admittedly have purchased an extent of Ac. 3. 20 guntas of land in the same survey number, but bit number is different. According to the defendants, the bit is 4/2.

( 8 ) NOW the question is whether the disputed land is bit No. 5/1 or 4/2 in sy. No. 384 of Chintapally village.

( 9 ) ALONG with the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed certain documents including the land revenue receipts, pattadar pass books etc. , but they did not file the registered sate deed under which the suit land was said to have been purchased by their father. But only during the course of trial, the said document was pressed into service.

( 10 ) NOW the defendants filed the present application under Order 8 Rule 6-A to accept the counter claim of cancellation of registered sale deed No. 3138/1977. In this application,