APHC010128332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Friday ,The Second Day Of May Two Thousand And Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 686 of 2025 Between:

P.Rajesh @ Rakesh and others ...Petitioners and P.Sreenivasulu Setty ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioners:

1. Y.V.S.S Dharaneesh Counsel for the respondent:

1. Mahadeva Kanthrigala The Court made the following Order:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.01.2025, allowing the I.A.No.605 of 2022 in O.S No.114 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, filed by the defendant under Order XXVI, rule 9 C.P.C., seeking to appoint an advocate as commissioner to note down the physical features and take the measurements of the petition schedule property with the help of municipal licenced surveyor as per the registered partition deed dated 229.02.2008.

2. The petitioners / plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant by restraining him from alienating nor creating any encumbrances in favour of any third parties in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners / plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are natural brothers. They, as absolute owners, have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption by anyone, including the defendant. They acquired the property under a registered gift settlement deed dated 16.01.2003, vide document no.75/2003, from their father P. Krishna Murthy when they were minors represented by their mother Smt. P. Vaani as their natural guardian. Earlier, when the defendant tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.109/2003 for permanent injunction. The defendant did not contest the said suit, and the trial Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession. Thereafter, the defendant again started interfering with the property, prompting the petitioners to file E.P. No.18 of 2021 for violation of the decree of injunction, which is pending. The petitioners are residing in a portion of item no.1 of the plaint schedule property measuring 2242.876 sq.ft., which is part of the total extent of 4550 sq.ft. The remaining portion of 2311.221 sq.ft. is being falsely claimed by the defendant under H.No.1/1434, as part of item no.2, which is inseparable from item no.1. The defendant has no right, title, or interest in the plaint schedule property and never had possession of the same. The petitioners issued a legal notice on 19.04.2022, calling upon the defendant not to alienate or create any encumbrances over the plaint schedule property. The defendant received the notice, but failed to respond.

4. The defendant / respondent filed written statement wherein it was pleaded that the allegations of the plaint regarding ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the petitioners under a registered gift deed dated 16.01.2003 (Doc No.75/2003), are false, as the gift deed was executed by their father without authority and is not binding on him; that the said suit was decided ex parte, and the trial Court had not given any finding about the open site in dispute; that the petitioners claim over 2311.221 sq.ft. as part of item no.1 is false and the said open site is separate and does not form part of the petitioners’ property; that the suit lacks cause of action and was filed only to harass the defendant; that the defendant is the fifth son of late P. Ramalingaiah Setty; that the petitioners’ father is the sixth son and during his lifetime, late Ramalingaiah executed an unregistered will dated 06.04.1976, under which D.No.1/718 (new 1/1434) was allotted to the defendant, and D.No.1/719 (new 1/1434-1) to the petitione