ORDER

Defendants in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 30.06.2022 in I.A.No.359 of 2022 in O.S.No.377 of 2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.377 of 2014 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction. The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.530/7 of Basinakonda Revenue Village, Madanapalle Mandal.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that suit schedule property and other extent of land in S.Nos.536/2 and 631/3 originally belonged to Nalla Kondappagari Ramaiah and his two sons, Venkataramana and Kondaiah and it is their ancestral property; that on 09.04.1941 Konda Ramaiah and his two sons borrowed Rs.275/- from N.Ramanna and executed a registered simple mortgage; that the schedule property and other lands were mortgaged towards security; that Konda Ramaiah and his eldest son Venkataramana died about 40 years ago and thus, Kondaiah became owner; that plaintiff?s paternal aunt Lakshmamma is wife of Kondaiah and they have no children; that plaintiff and his sons were looking after Kondaiah and Lakshmamma; that Kondaiah died in the year 1986 and after death of Kondaiah, Lakshmamma came into possession of schedule property and other properties; that Lakshmamma executed a registered Will on 31.08.2001 in favour of plaintiff and his sons bequeathing a stone terraced house and suit land and Ac.1.92 cents of land in S.No.1723/4; that plaintiff was granted pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of suit schedule property and other lands; that 2nd defendant is son of 1st defendant and they have no right over suit land; that defendant possessed land on the North and West of suit land in S.No.530/9; that defendants are trying to interfere with schedule land and hence, filed the suit for perpetual injunction.

4. 1st Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that plaint schedule survey number is very close to Madanapalli – Nimmanapalli Road, as such the market value of plaint schedule property furnished by the plaintiff at Rs.1,00,000/- is too low; that by suppressing several facts, the suit was filed; that defendant denied the correctness of the plaint schedule; that a perusal of boundaries mentioned in the Will dated 31.08.2001 with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint, none of them are tallying with each other; that plaintiff has shown different property without verifying the document; that 1st defendant is the owner of S.No.530/1 and 530/4, both are wet lands and they are adjacent lands to suit S.No.530/7 on North and West; however they are not shown as boundaries at all; that suit survey numbers are shown for each one of the boundaries in the plaint schedule, which are totally incorrect; that during the lifetime of Lakshmamma, W/o Kondaiah, she sold away plaint schedule property with correct boundaries to 1st defendant for Rs.3,300/- orally in the presence of village elders and family well wishers and delivered possession to 1st defendant; that 1st defendant combined the schedule property with extents available in S.Nos.530/1 and 530/4 and made the entire extent as a single and compact plot; that surname of defendants is >Sandra?, but not >Jangam? and eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

5. Plaintiff got filed two interlocutory applications and they were allowed. I.A.No.213 of 2015 filed to amend the plaint was allowed on 11.12.2017. I.A.No.416 of 2019 filed to amend the plaint was allowed on 10.07.2019.

6. Plaintiff also filed I.A.No.359 of 2022 to amend the surname of defendants and also survey numbers of northern, southern and western boundaries.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner it was contended interalia that while giving instructions to advocate for proceeding with cross examination of D.W.1, his advocate pointed out that defendants have taken a plea about surname; that to avoid technical objections, he was advised to amend the plaint by giving correct descripti