Defendant in the W.S. had categorically denied the title of plaintiff.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 07.03.2013 passed in I.A.No.164/2008 in A.S.No.119/2007 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

2. I have heard Sri Surendra Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and Sri B. Vijayabhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as “plaintiff and defendant”.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The plaint schedule property was purchased by his mother Dasthagiramma under a registered sale deed dated 06.05.1969, marked as Ex.A1. According to the plaintiff, he was minor on the date of the purchase of the property by his mother. After attaining the majority, he got his name mutated in the revenue records; pattadar passbook and title deed were issued to him by the revenue authorities. According to him, the defendant’s father filed Original Suit No.238/1974 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Alur against his mother for recovery of arrears of lease amount. The said suit was decreed and the father of the defendant filed E.P.No.78/1975 and got the plaint schedule property attached. The property was put to auction and the defendant’s father purchased the property in the Court auction on 02.08.1976 for an amount of Rs.1,625/-. The version of the plaintiff is that as on the date of the said Court auction sale also he was minor and therefore, he states that the Court auction sale is null and void and is not binding on him. The plaintiff claims to be in continuous possession of the plaint schedule property though the property was purchased by the defendant’s father in the Court auction.

5. Obviously, the plaintiff had knowledge of purchase of property by the defendant’s father in Court auction as on the date of filing of the suit by him. But he did not seek the relief of declaration of title and has chosen to file the suit for bare injunction.

6. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement contending that the plaintiff and his mother were residing jointly and they were aware of his father purchasing the plaint schedule property in the Court auction on 02.08.1976 and thereafter taking possession of the property and contended that the plaintiff and his mother never objected for taking possession of the property. It is specifically contended by the defendant in the written statement that the plaintiff’s mother was not the owner of the plaint schedule property and with a fraudulent intention to knock away the property, the plaintiff filed the suit for simple injunction against him. Thus, according to the defendant, the property has been in his continuous and uninterrupted possession ever since his father purchased the same in Court auction and took possession of the same. The defendant made a categorical denial of title of the plaintiff and his mother in respect of the plaint schedule property and asserted that he is the absolute owner of the property and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.

7. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, against which, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.119/2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. In the said appeal, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.164/2008 under Order VI Rule-17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, permitting him to pray for the relief of declaration of his right and title to the suit schedule property and also to declare the Court sale deed dated 02.08.1976 as null and void and not binding on him. The said application was opposed by the defendant, but was allowed by the app