1 APHC010221172018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2878/2018 Between: M/s.bomma Narayana And Sons ...PETITIONER AND Ponnada Venkata Ramana Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision is filed against the docket order dated 25.01.2018 passed in O.S.SR.No.9234 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed suit vide O.S.SR.No.9234 of 2017, seeking to pass a decree in his favour by fixing terms of sale and to direct the defendants 1 to 8 to register sale deed over the plaint schedule property, and for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 8 from evicting the plaintiff or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The said suit was rejected by an order dated 25.01.2018, by the Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, on the ground that the suit was not properly framed and there was no cause of action for the petitioner. Assailing the said order, the present revision petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the plaint schedule property is a non residential premises bearing house Nos.29-15-24, 29-15-25 & 29-15-26. The petitioner/plaintiff is the tenant of defendants 1 to 7. 3 The defendant 8 is the purchaser of the suit schedule property from defendants 1 to 7. It is further case of the petitioner that, at the time of execution of the lease over the suit schedule property, the defendants 1 to 7 promised him to sell the suit schedule property, and therefore he has got right of preemption. When the defendants 1 to 7 intend to sell the adjoining properties to the suit schedule, the petitioner negotiated with them, but they have insisted him to purchase the entire building. Thereafter, defendants 1 to 7 issued notice to the plaintiff/petitioner asking him to vacate the suit schedule property and they filed a suit vide O.S.No.105 of 2008, on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, for eviction against the petitioner/plaintiff. The said suit was decreed in favour of the defendants 1 to 7 by judgment and decree dated 03.01.2013. Assailing the correctness of the said decree and judgment, the petitioner preferred a regular appeal vide A.S.No.23 of 2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendarvaram, and the same is pending adjudication. Pending the said appeal, defendants 1 to 7 alienated the subject property in favour of the defendant 8/8th respondent through a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2013. In those circumstances, he filed the present suit, claiming right of pre-emption. 4 5. On perusal of the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the petitioner claimed right over the suit schedule property, the petitioner pleaded that there was contract between the parties coupled with a prevailing custom. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, the assertion of a primitive right by the petitioner cannot be based on usage or custom. Moreover, to substantiate his claim, the petitioner has not produced any documentary proof to show that he has got right of pre-emption over the property in dispute. The petitioner only relied on the pleadings of the defendants/respondents in the eviction suit, filed against him. Though there is a jural relation between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 7, merely because there is long standing possession over the suit schedule property, will not create any right of pre-emption on the petitioner. Further, despite having knowledge about the alienation in favour of the respondent 8, the petitioner did not take any steps at the relevant point of time, nor he sought for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.10.2013 executed in favour of the respondent 8. 6. In view of the above, it is clear that the relief sought by the petitioner in the suit requesting the Trial Court to pass a decree in favour of the petitioner by fixing the terms of sale, by directing the respondents 1 to 8 to register the sale deed in his favour, cannot be 5 granted. It is needless to mention that, as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule property was already alienated in favour of the respondent 8. Unless the sale deed executed infavour of the respondent 8 is set aside by the competent court of law, the question of granting such relief as claimed by the petitioner does not arise. 7. In view of the same, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to take steps available under law, if so advised. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J Date: 28.02.2025 ANS 6 221 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2878/2018 Date: 28.02.2025 ANS