IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE purchaser from defendants 2 and 3 is the revision petitioner herein. The plaintiff claims to be owner of 1/3rd undivided share in the suitschedule land whereas the first defendant s contention is that he purchased ac. 7-00 and odd from the second defendant, his daughter-in-law and son. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the joint owners and claim to be in joint possession of the suit schedule property. The learned District judge holding that the allegation that the second defendant is trying to create some documents in favour of the first defendant will not entitle the said persons to interfere with the joint possession of the plaintiff and his brothers and observing that the directions given by the learned Subordinate judge that the first defendant should file a separate suit and get his share declared is not correct, held that it is for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and claim his l/3rd share if he does not want to continue his possession along with defendants 2 and 3. He accordingly granted interim suspension of the order in IA No. 101/91 in OS No. 16/91 while directing urgent notice to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document