HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:865 OF 2011 ORDER: This is a revision filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the rejection of the request made by them to mark the document viz., oral sale confirmation agreement dated 31.12.1971, by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, in O.S.No.70 of 2007, on 07.02.2011. Heard and perused the material available on record. Earlier, the respondent-defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2002 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, for declaration that the schedule property belonged to him and for recovery of vacant possession and for other reliefs. On transfer of the said suit to the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, the same was numbered as O.S.No.609 of 2005. During the pendency of the suit, on coming to know that the sale confirmation agreement dated 31.12.1971 executed in favour of his father through one Gudimetta Venkata Appaiah Sarma, who drafted/scribed the agreement, was till then lying with him, the 2nd plaintiff filed I.A.No.534 of 2004 to receive the said document. But the said petition was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, he had preferred a revision in C.R.P.960 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed and thereby, it has become final. While so, the suit in O.S.609 of 2005 was decreed in favour of the respondent herein and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed A.S.No.29 of 2006 before the II Additional District Judge, Krishna, Vijayawada, and obtained stay of decree in I.A.No.479 of 2006 and the said appeal appears to have been pending. At this stage, the petitioners filed the present suit basing upon the very same document dated 31.12.1971, which was rejected in the earlier proceedings i.e., in C.R.P.960 of 2005, which have become final, with regard to the very same property stating that the suit schedule property was originally purchased by the father of the 2nd plaintiff from the defendant and his adoptive mother and the same was stated in reply notice marked as Ex.A-7 in O.S.No.609 of 2005. It is to be noted that the petitioners filed the present suit though initially for declaration, but they are now seeking the relief to direct the defendant to receive the value of the plaint schedule site on the ground that the building was constructed by the 1st plaintiff, or in the alternative to direct the defendant to pay the value of the structure at the cost valued by a recognized Engineer, in case the above appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Krishna, Vijayawada, filed by the plaintiffs, is dismissed. The relief sought for in the present suit does not disclose the declaration of the title of the plaintiffs under the document in question. If that being the case, there are no such circumstances necessitating the marking of the document in question. In this view of the matter and in view of the fact that the order passed in C.R.P. No.960 of 2005 has become final, I am of the view that the Court below is justified in rejecting the request made by the plaintiffs and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:18th March, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:865 OF 2011 18.3.2011