The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dismissing I.A.No.34 of 2023 in O.S.No.05 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu filed by the plaintiff under Order XIII, Rule 3 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to demark the document of photostat copy of an unregistered partition deed dated 11.10.1985, marked as Ex.B13.

2. The plaintiff filed suit initially only against the defendant No.1 for partition of the suit schedule property stating that the suit schedule landed property of Ac.3.65 cents in S.No.980 in Kanekal village, Ananthapuramu district was purchased in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 vide a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1975 when the plaintiff was a minor and that the defendant No.1 used to cultivate the land and give the share of the plaintiff, but as the defendant No.1 was not paying any rental amount and failed to give the share of the property to the plaintiff when he demanded for partition of the same.

3. The defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was jointly purchased and both of them had half share each in it, but the same was divided into equal halves as per the recitals of the partition deed cum settlement agreement dated 11.10.1985 and that the entries in revenue records were mutated and pattadar pass books were issued, but suppressing the facts, the suit was filed. He also pleaded that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 have brothers and five sisters and the suit is bad for their non-joinder.

4. Later, the defendant No.2, who is one of the brothers of the parties to the suit, was impleaded through I.A.No.399 of 2013. The defendant No.2 filed a written statement pleading collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in filing the suit. He further pleaded that their father purchased a number of landed properties and got them registered not only in his name, but also in the names of his children. As there were some disputes in the family, the father of the parties orally partitioned the landed properties. Each sharer has been enjoying their respective share of land within specific boundaries. Evidencing the oral partition on 11.10.1985, a family settlement deed was executed with the consent of all his sons. The father and all his sons signed the settlement deed dated 11.10.1985. As per the settlement, the suit schedule property fell to the share of the defendants Nos.1 and 2. The northern portion fell to the share of the defendant No.2 and the southern portion fell to the share of the defendant No.1. Both the defendants submitted an application to the gram panchayat for approval of lay out of the suit schedule property into plots. The gram panchayat approved the lay out bearing No.56 dated 19.07.1997. Plot Nos.1 to 44 on the southern side of the suit schedule property fell to the share of the defendant No.1. Northern side plot Nos.1 to 40 and plot No.9A fell to the share of the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 sold 15 number of the plots to third parties in the year 1999 under various registered sale deeds and gifted some of the plots to his daughters, namely Dislshad, Hazarabi and Parvin. The names of the purchasers are mentioned. Some of the purchasers (whose names are mentioned) constructed houses in the sites purchased by them. They obtained electricity connections from A.P.C.P.D.C.L. authorities. The plaintiff knows all these facts. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff filed the suit taking undue advantage of the sale deed dated 09.06.1975. The suit schedule property as described in the plaint does not exist. The suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5. Thereafter, in response to the written statement of the defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 filed an additional written st