ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff is directed against the order and decree, dated 18.06.2020, of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissing I.A.No.1028 of 2019 in OS No.1004 of 2013 filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC, requesting to recast the issues.

2. Heard Sri A. Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri K. Sairam Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Respondents/ defendant Nos. 2 to 13 are shown to be not necessary parties to this revision petition.

3. The suit is filed contending briefly as follows:

(a) The property of an extent of about Ac.8.00 cents in Survey No.1/1, Chinnawaltair, M.V.P Colony, Visakhapatnam, was originally purchased by late Pinninti Appili with his self acquisitions under a registered sale deed, dated 15.10.1956, registered as document No.2576/56 and the said Pinninti Appili was in possession and enjoyment of the same. A part of the said land was acquired for formation of beach road by the State Government. Out of the above mentioned property, an extent of 600 square yards is being jointly owned, possessed and enjoyed by Pinninti Appili family. Pinninti Appili died intestate, on 15.03.1982, leaving behind his wife, P.Appayamma, son, Suribabu, the plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3. As Suribabu was mentally imbalanced, the mother of the plaintiff, Smt. P.Appayamma, acted as his guardian and used to look after the joint family affairs. The schedule property was purchased by Pinninti Appili from the joint family funds and the same is an ancestral property and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are the coparceners who succeeded to the property. There was no partition of the property. Pinninti Suribabu passed away on 15.12.1998, leaving behind him his wife Pinninti Kanthamma, Son, Pinninti Ramakrishna and daughter, Pinninti Shyamala.

(b) While things stood thus, the 1st defendant has been demanding the plaintiff to hand over physical possession of the schedule property on the ground that he got a sale deed in his favour through Court in respect of 155 square yards. It is found that the schedule mentioned therein is not correct and the boundaries do not tally with the actual boundaries on ground.

(c) However, the defendant No.1 is making hectic efforts to trespass into the joint family property highhandedly and illegally. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit to set aside the registered sale deed, dated 05.02.2013, as null and void, as the same was obtained by playing fraud on Court.

4. The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending, in brief, as under:

The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.1049/1991 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, against Pinninti Suribabu for specific performance of contract, dated 23.06.1988, executed by late Pinninti Suribabu, husband of the 4th defendant and father of defendants 5 & 6 and obtained a decree. In the said suit, late Pinninti Suribabu took a plea that he is only a joint owner of the suit property along with his mother and sister while admitting the execution of the agreement, dated 23.06.1988, but as he could not place any material before the Court, the suit was decreed. Suribabu did not prefer any appeal, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1049 of 1991 have became final. On the basis of the decree, the plaintiff filed E.P.81 of 2004 under Order XXI Rules 22 & 34 CPC against the heirs of late Suribabu. In the execution petition, the wife of late Suribabu, the 2nd JDr also filed counter and her objections were negatived. The mother of late Suribabu, who is the 3rd judgment debtor, died on 24.05.2010, and therefore, the 1st defendant filed E.A.No.218 of 2010 to bring respondents 6 to 8, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 in the suit, on record and add them as judgment debtors 6 to 8. However, the said petition was dismissed on 06.02.20