This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16-6-2009 passed in LA.No. 53 of 2009 in O.S.No. 10 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Sircilla, Karimnagar District, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7, Rule II(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 C.P.C

2. (a) The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 10 of 2005. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule property. The plaint averments in brief are: The plaintiff and the defendant are the joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property admeasuring 129 sq.yards bearing Municipal Door No. 4-1-30 (old No. 10-3-95/1), situated at Indiranagar Sub-Road, Sircilla. Plaintiff's sister Varamma is the mother of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff is the maternal uncle of the defendant. They jointly purchased the suit schedule property from Pampati Srinivas s/o. Nagabhushanam for a consideration of Rs. 32,800/- by contributing the sale consideration in equal ratio. However, sale-deed was obtained in the name of the defendant as the plaintiff was taking treatment for his chronic ailment by visiting various hospitals at different places. The original registered sale deed has been in the custody of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the stamp duty and registration fee have been incurred by them in equal ratio. They have been paying the taxes to the municipality in respect of the suit schedule property in equal ratio.

However, receipts are issued in the name of the defendant. An agreement came to be executed between the parties on 18-6-2003 confirming that the suit schedule property was purchased jointly and the sale consideration was paid to the vendor in equal proportions. Disputes arose between the parties and thereupon, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 2-2-2005 calling upon him for division of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds in two equal halves and allotment of one such half to his share. There being no co-operation of the defendant for division of the property by metes and bounds, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule property.

(b) The defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. He disputed the agreement dated 18-6-2003 pressed into service by the plaintiff. He asserted that the suit schedule property has been purchased by him out of his own funds and no part of the sale consideration has been flown from the plaintiff. But, the relationship between the parties has not been disputed. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the written statement, which reads as hereunder:

"The plaintiff is the maternal uncle of the defendant. That the plaintiff and defendant and family members have been very much cordial with each other and the plaintiff was having love and affection towards the defendant as the plaintiff has no issues of any kind. That on the proposal of the plaintiff only the defendant has purchased the land. That on his inspiration only wife of the defendant by name Chandrakala also purchased the open land to an extent of 129 sq. yards of the premises bearing No. 4-1-30 old No. 10-3-95/1. That the plaintiff have looked after the all affairs of the said purchased premises under his supervision only the construction work has been made by obtaining permission from the Municipal Council, Sircilla with respect to property of the wife of defendant. All the original documents have been kept with the plaintiff. That the defendant and family members completely trusted the plaintiff but utter surprise to the defendant the plaintiff as the defendants and his family members are residing at Vemulawada proper and Mandal have developed evil thought to grab the suit land when the defendant learnt the defend. ant demanded the plaintiff for return of the origi