IYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6-12-1988 of the learned III Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati appointing a commissioner in l. A. No. 642 of 1988 in A. S. No. 47 of 1987 on his file. The facts which are relevant for appreciation of the point in question are the following :

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the respondent in the appeal, respondent in l. A. No. 642 of 1988 and plaintiff in the suit while the respondents in the revision petition are the appellants in the appeal, petitioners in LA. No. 642 of 1988 and the defendants in the suit. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration and injunction alleging that the second defendant who is the wife of the first defendant without any manner of right or title to the suit property are trying to occupy the same about four days prior to the institution of the suit. The defendants resisted the suit alleging that the second defendant purchased the property more particularly mentioned in her written statement, under Ex. B-1 sale deed and eversince have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, In the suit an applicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document