sale deed which is pending for enquiry. During pendency of the suit, D.1-Tati Varalakshmamma since died pending suit, her son by name Venkata Ramana Rao-D.7 is added as her legal heir to the suit and the plaintiff Cherukuri Poleru or his vendors D.2 to D.8 are nothing to do with the plaint schedule item No.2 and plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment and if the plaintiff and defendants behind the back of the petitioner are allowed to proceed with the suit, his rights accrued in the suit for specific performance supra are being deprived. The D.8–R.9-Thati Rajasekhar filed counter and contested. After hearing, the trial Court dismissed the same with observation that the petitioner/ third party did not file even a scrap of paper to say his possession and enjoyment of item No.2 of plaint schedule property but filed certified copy of the judgment dt.17.04.2012 in O.S.No.341 of 2004 in executing the same against D.1, her sonsD.7 and D.8 (R.2, R.8 and R.9 herein). It is also observed that even the description of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.341 of 2004 and item No.2 of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.5 of 2008 not tallying, leave about the decree and judgment dt.17.04.2012 is stayed by the appellate Court etc; and thereby nothing to implead him in the long pending suit of 2008 that too when did not state how he got knowledge all of a sudden.
