ORDER:

Defendants in the suit filed the above revision assailing the order dated 28.04.2022 in I.A.No.320 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2021 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Rajampet.

2. 1st Respondent herein, being the plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.7 of 2021 seeking partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares by metes and bounds and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the schedule properties to the third parties and to declare the registered partition deed dated 18.05.2005 as null and void and do not bind the plaintiff.

3. Averments, in brief, in the plaint are that Maddipatla Narasimhulu Naidu and Subba Naidu are the sons of Maddipatla Govindaiah Naidu, who inherited the properties from his ancestors; that name of Govindaiah Naidu was mutated in village accounts like 1-B namuna and adangals; that Govindaiah Naidu was also blessed with four daughters apart from two sons and the marriages of daughters were performed; that in or around 1981 or 1982, Govindaiah Naidu died intestate leaving behind him his wife Narayanamma, two sons viz., Narasimhulu Naidu and Subba Naidu, four daughters viz., Amruthamma, Subbalakshmi, Subbamma and Jayalakshmi as his legal representatives; that Narayanamma also died in the year 1984; that Narasimhulu Naidu and Subba Naidu were enjoying their ancestral properties jointly and later, misunderstandings arose between them; that in the year 1999, Narasimhulu Naidu and Subba Naidu got partitioned their ancestral properties orally and in the said partition, plaint schedule properties fell to the share of Subba Naidu; that since 1999, Subba Naidu, plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 were enjoying the schedule properties jointly; that Subba Naidu died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as his legal representatives; that plaintiff was married to B.A.N.Chowdary and used to stay at her in-laws house and later shifted to Hyderabad; that in the month of February, 2021, plaintiff reliably came to know that 3rd defendant executed some nominal and sham documents in favour of his followers regarding joint family properties and is also trying to sell away the remaining properties; that plaintiff sent her friends and relatives to defendants 1 to 3 seeking partition of schedule properties, however it was not materialized; that plaintiff applied for encumbrance certificate on 16.04.2021 and a perusal of it would show that father of plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 executed a nominal document for different extents in favour of defendants 5 to 14; it also came to light that plaintiff’s father Subba Naidu and 3rd defendant in collusion with each other created registered partition deed dated 18.05.2005 with a view to avoid legitimate share of plaintiff and 2nd defendant and the said document has no legal sanctity, invalid, void and not binding on the plaintiff and 2nd defendant; that taking advantage of registered partition deed dated 18.05.2005, 3rd defendant executed some more sham and nominal registered sale deeds in favour of defendants 15 to 24 for different extents of properties; that 3rd defendant also purchased item No.9 of plaint schedule property in his name and in the name of 4th defendant and also purchased item No.6 of plaint schedule property in his name with the joint family funds; that plaintiff addressed letter dated 24.04.2021 to defendants 1 to 3 through registered post demanding them to partition of schedule properties; that defendants 1 to 3 did not give any reply nor partitioned the properties; that 3rd defendant even after receiving notice is executing sham and nominal registered documents in favour of defendants 26 and 27 and hence, filed the suit for partition.

4. 3rd Defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 1, 2 and 4.

5. Pending the suit, defendants 1 to 4 filed I.A.No.320 of

2021 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition,