ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.07.2025 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.185 of 2025 in O.S.No.143 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu filed by the plaintiff under section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Order XIII, Rule 3 and Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the defendant No.1 to pay stamp duty and penalty after filing the original of the document of rectification, dated 14.02.1986, marked as Ex.B7 before the Court and if the defendant No.1 fails to do so, the Court to de-exhibit Ex.B7.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property of land of Ac.4.00 in S.No.37 of Rayadurg town, Ananthapuramu District and for its recovery of possession to the plaintiff. Initially, this suit was filed against only one defendant. Subsequently, defendants Nos.2 to 10 were impleaded as per the order dated 26.12.2017, in I.A.No.322 of 2016.

3. The plaintiff pleaded that his mother purchased the property from Chinna Siddappa on 30.06.1982 under a registered sale deed and obtained its possession and enjoyed it thereafter and that his father died on 24.10.1987 and his mother died on 03.08.2003 leaving behind the plaintiff as the sole legal heir and thus he has been enjoying the property since the date of death of his mother, but as the defendant No.1 had high handedly encroached the plaint schedule property in the absence of the plaintiff in the village, the suit was filed.

3. The suit was resisted by filing the written statement by defendant No.4 denying the title of the plaintiff and further pleading that one Bheemakka 1st wife of Chinna Siddappa (vendor under the sale deed dated 30.06.1982) and Bheemakka got the plaint schedule property from her ancestors and therefore her husband Chinna Siddappa had no right to transfer the property to the mother of the plaintiff as he had no right over it; that Bheemakka and her husband jointly had sold the said property to Smt. Uma Devi under a registered sale deed dated 29.04.1998 and delivered the same to the purchaser; that thereafter, Smt. Uma Devi had sold the said property to Lakshmi Devamma under a registered sale deed dated 05.06.2002 and delivered the property to the purchaser; that Lakshmi Devamma had sold the same to this defendant under a registered sale deed dated 28.09.2005 and delivered its possession; that this defendant had sold the said property under two separate sale deeds dated 17.09.2010 to Sri B.Siddappa and Sri B.Eswarappa and put them in possession of their respective part of the property; that the names of the purchasers were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in their favour; that the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties; that having knowledge of these transactions, the plaintiff had filed unjust suit by suppressing the transactions; that this defendant is not in possession of the property from the date of sales; that the plaintiff has never been in the possession of the property; that the pleading of the plaintiff that he is the only child to his parents is incorrect as his parents have three more sons and five daughters and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. During the course of trial, the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. In the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the plaintiff, he admitted that he is in possession of rectification deed, dated 14.02.1986.

5. Thereafter, through the witness for defendant No.1 examined as D.W.2, a photostat copy of ‘Oppudala Khararunama’, dated 14.02.1986, was sought to be filed into Court. It was objected for it’s receipt in evidence as secondary evidence. Then, the defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.243 of 2019 to receive it as secondary evidence. On 31.08.2019, the petition in I.A.No.243 of 2019 was dismissed. Against the said order, the defendant No.1 filed C.R.P.No.2975 of 2019 before this