Point of Law: plea that the appellants were not aware about the contents of the documents cannot be accepted for more that one reason. Firstly, it is very difficult to believe the claim of appellants that they were unaware of the transactions which took place in the village after the execution of the partition deed in the year 2003. Apart from that, in the L.A. Application filed, they have appeared before the District Legal Services Authority and signed the documents

JUDGMENT :

C.Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Order 43 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. assailing the order dated 5.12.2018 passed in I.A. No.165 of 2018 in O.S. No.82 of 2018 by the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, as improper and incorrect.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the above suit to declare the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as absolute owners and title holders of the plaint ‘B’ and ‘G’ properties respectively and to evict the defendants 2 and 5 from the plaint schedule ‘B’ and ‘G’ properties; consequently to cancel the registered deed of partition bearing document No.966 of 2003, dated 5.7.2003 registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, Pakal, Chittoor District and to direct defendant No.5 to produce the original of the same and send the same to the Sub-Registrar Office, Pakala, Chittoor District; and to direct the defendant Nos.2 and 5 to pay future mesne profits of Rs.1,00,000/-per year to the plaintiffs.

3. The present I.A. is filed by the plaintiffs seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents – D2 and D5 in any way alienating the petition schedule properties to any third parties pending disposal of the suit and also to grant an ad-interim injunction to the like effect till the disposal of this petition.

4. A Counter came to be filed by the 1st respondent 2nd – defendant denying the averments in the petition filed. It is stated that in recognition of title and exclusive possession of the properties allotted to the share of the father of the 1st respondent vide ‘B’ schedule of the registered partition deed No.966 of 2003, dated 5.7.2003, the then M.R.O. of Pakala issued ROR pattadar passbook under patta No.1828 in the name of the father of 1st respondent. The father of the 1st respondent died intestate leaving him, the 1st defendant N.Saradamma, the 1st respondent and mother of this respondent by name N.Jyothi as his legal heirs to succeed his estate including the properties covered under ‘B’ schedule of the partition deed and hence the above suit as well as the petition are bad for non-joinder of the mother of the 1st respondent as necessary party in the above suit. It is further averred that on 12.6.2013, the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant and mother of 2nd defendant, being legal heirs of the father of 1st respondent, partitioned the properties covered under ‘B’ schedule of partition deed and as per the said partition ‘A’ schedule properties were jointly allotted to the share of 2nd defendant and his mother. Further, ‘B’ schedule properties were allotted to the share of 1st defendant herein and later the 1st defendant’ out of love and affection towards 2nd defendant’ has settled her allotted properties and delivered possession to the 1st respondent herein under registered settlement deed dated 31.5.2017. Since then the 1st respondent herein is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties and in recognition of his title and possession, the Tahsildar of Pakala issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in the name of the mother of 1st respondent; hence, seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. The 5th defendant filed separate counter denying the allegations in the petition. It is stated that one of the brothers N.Srinivasulu Naidu filed a partition suit in O.S.No.58 of 1956 against N.Chengama Naidu, Narayanaswamy Chowdhary and his brother N.Chinna Venkatrama Naidu before Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. In the said suit, the shares of the plaintiffs and defendants were declared and as per the decree in the said suit, the plaintiff N.Srinivasulu Naidu got 1/5th undivided share. The 1st defendant N.Chengma Naidu got 2/5th undivided share and the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the said suit viz., Narayanaswamy Chowdhary and his brother N.Chinna Venkatrama Naidu have got remaining 1/5th undivided share in their joint family properties. N.Narayanaswamy Naidu, who got undivided 1/5th share, had three sons and four daughters, namely, N.Sreenadh Chowdhary, N.Lakshmina