THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4287 of 2009 Dated: 18-12-2009 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt G.Jhansi, the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner had filed O.S.No. 3 of 2008 before the Senior Civil Judge, Parchur against the respondent (D3), his father-D1 and the predecessor-in-title of the respondent herein seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 4-2-2004 executed by D2 in favour of respondent herein having derived title to the suit schedule properties under a sale deed dated 9-8-2001 executed by D1 in favour of D2. In the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 105 of 2008 for an injunction restraining the respondent herein from further alienating the property pending disposal of the suit. The said I.A. was allowed by the order of the trial court dated 15-4-2008. Thereagainst, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No. 21 of 2008, which was allowed by the order dated 10-6-2009 of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole, wherefrom this revision arises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The lower appellate Court, on a careful and cogent analysis of the miscellaneous appeal, concluded that the suit schedule properties were purchased by the maternal grand father of the revision petitioner and by the time of sale of the plaint schedule properties by D1 and D2 the plaintiff was the minor; that D1 had filed an O.P. before the District Court, Guntur and had obtained permission to sell the house property at Guntur for Rs.10 lakhs with a condition that the amount of the sale consideration be deposited in the Bank for the necessities of the revision petitioner. From the amount so deposited, the 1st defendant-revision petitioner’s father withdrew an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. Thereafter the petitioner was declared as major as per the order dated 19-1-2004 in an interlocutory application in O.P.No. 135 of 2000. The revision petitioner withdrew the remaining amount thereafter. The lower appellate Court also found that the revision petitioner’s father the 1st defendant had filed the O.P. under the Guardian and Wards Act being O.P.No. 5 of 2001 before the Principal District Judge, Ongole seeking leave to sell the plaint schedule properties. That application was allowed and his father was authorised to sell the properties for the stipulated amount with a direction to deposit the amount in a fixed deposit. The revision petitioner’s father sold the properties in accordance with the orders of the Court in O.P.No. 5 of 2001 and deposited the sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000-00 which were invested in fixed deposit. Thereafter the father filed documents asserting necessity and on satisfaction of the Court and due authorisation, was permitted to and withdrew amounts from time to time from the deposit aforementioned. The 3rd defendant purchased the suit schedule properties from the 2nd defendant thereafter under a registered sale deed dated 4-2-2004 and the lower appellate Court held that the respondent-3rd defendant was a bonafide purchaser for valid consideration and further that the suit itself was barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond the period of three years from the date of attainment of majority by the revision petitioner, the impugned sale transaction having occurred during the revision petitioner’s minority. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 15-4-2008 in I.A.No. 105 of 2008 was set aside. This court discerns no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the lower appellate Court in allowing C.M.A.No. 21 of 2008 filed by the respondent, by the order dated 10-6-2009, warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall however be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 18th December, 2009 GRR