Though these three revision petitions arise out of interlocutory orders passed in two different suits, the disputes in both these suits are actually between two brothers. Therefore, the revisions were taken up together for disposal, at the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on both sides.

2. Heard Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one brother and his wife and Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the other brother.

C.R.P.No.106 of 2017:

3. Chalasani Indira Ramana Rao (the respondent in C.R.P.No.106 of 2017) and Chalasani Souri Raja Perumallu (the respondent in C.R.P.Nos.6483 and 6484 of 2016 and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.106 of 2017) are blood brothers. Chalasani Indira Ramana Rao filed a suit in O.S.No.13 of 2016 against his younger brother Chalasani Souri Raja Perumallu praying for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a vacant house site of an extent of 630 square yards bearing Door No.14/89A, Gudivada Municipality, Krishna District. There was also a prayer in the suit for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the barbed wire fencing erected with poles each of a length of about 6 feet in the middle of the plaint schedule property. The claim of Chalasani Indira Ramana Rao in O.S.No.13 of 2016 was that the plaint schedule property and some other properties belonged to the mother of both the parties and that before her death on 15-07-1984, she executed a Will dated 06-07-1984 bequeathing the properties to the plaintiff as well as to the father; that the properties described in Schedule A to the Will fell to the share of the father, while the properties described in Schedule B to the Will fell to the share of the plaintiff in the suit; that after the death of the testatrix, the plaintiff let out 6 portions of the plaint schedule property to tenants and started collecting rents without any objection from anyone; that in December, 2013, the plaintiff sold away the structure of the house including the wooden doors etc., to one Venkateswara Rao, who removed the same and handed over the vacant site to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff not only got mutation effected in the Revenue records but also started paying tax and even mortgaged the plaint schedule property to Gudivada Cooperative Urban Bank Limited; that when the plaintiff suffered a kidney problem and got admitted in a hospital, the defendant installed poles in the middle of the suit schedule property and erected barbed wire fencing and that, therefore, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit.

4. The younger brother Chalasani Souri Raja Perumallu filed a written statement contending that the suit based upon the xerox copy of the alleged Will of the mother was not maintainable; that the plaintiff was not in possession of the original Will; that the barbed wire fencing was in existence from May, 2009, showing that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property; that the property described in Schedule B to the Will executed by the mother was only 576 square yards and not 630 square yards; that the total extent of site which belonged to the mother was only 1206 square yards; that out of the same, she bequeathed 630 square yards of site and the house to the father, describing it as Item No.4 of A schedule property; that the plaintiff sold the vacant site of the extent of 200 square yards to the south of his terraced building in the extreme southern side of his site of 576 square yards for a valuable consideration of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the defendant under an oral sale dated 10-5-2009; that the site sold to the defendant by the plaintiff is situate towards the south of building bearing Door No.14/89A; that the said site is to the north of the tiled house belonging to the defendant, who purchased the same on account of vastu and that, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

5. Along with the suit O.S.No.13 of 2016, Chalasani Indira Ramana Rao filed an application for