O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 21-06-2023 in I.A.No.224 of 2023 in O.S.No.1520 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, whereby the trial Court had allowed the underlying Interlocutory Application filed under Order

13 Rule 8 CPC r/w Section 33 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

2. The petitioners herein are respondents in the underlying Interlocutory Application and plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, and perused the record.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed the subject suit vide O.S.No.1520 of 2016 against the respondents for declaration of their title to the suit schedule property bearing plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 400 sy. Yards in Sy.No.135, Ward No.2, Block No.4 situated at Hanuman Tekdi, Macha Bolarum, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District allotted to late S.N. Bhikam Singh, 1^st petitioner’s husband and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 pursuant to a compromise decree vide O.S.No.128 of 1983 dated 02-12-1985; and that the husband of 1^st petitioner and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property since then.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that 1^st petitioner’s husband had converted the said land into plots as per the layout and sold most of the plots to various prospective purchasers; and that plot Nos.10 and 11 admeasuring 400 sq. yards remained unsold in the said layout.

6. It is the further case of petitioners that Sri S.N.Bhikam Singh died on 08-10-1994 leaving behind the petitioners as legal heirs to his estate and thus, they are the owners of plot Nos.10 and 11, which remained unsold in the layout.

7. It is also the further case of the petitioners that during the first week of July, 2015 when they went to the subject property with an intention to develop the same, the respondents have objected the petitioners from entering into the subject property claiming that they are owners of the subject property through a registered partition deed dated 22-03-2013.

8. It is the further case of the petitioners that on being objected to by the respondents from entering into the subject land belonging to the husband of 1^st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 claiming to be the owners under a partition deed, the petitioners have obtained a certified copy of the partition deed, and noticed that respondents are claiming the property by creating a false and bogus partition deed and as such, the respondents cannot claim any valid right, title or interest over the property.

9. It is the further case of the petitioners that husband of 1^st petitioner and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4 never executed any document in favour of the respondents or in favour of respondent’s father and as such, the partition deed, under which possession is claimed by respondents, is null and void document and not binding on the petitioners.

10. It is also the further case of the petitioners that as they have reliably learnt that the respondents are trying to sell away the suit schedule property to third parties in order to defeat the claim of the petitioners by entangling the subject property in multiple litigation, they had approached the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and filed the subject suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

11. Petitioners further contend that in the aforesaid, the respondents by filing their written statement claimed that they are in possession of the suit schedule property under a notarized agreement of sale dated 12-11-1987 executed by 1^st petitioner’s husband and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, however they could not get a sale deed executed due to lack of funds.

12. It is further contended that while the aforesaid suit is pending consideration, the respondents had filed the underlying Interlocutory Ap