TARIGONDA MALLIKARAJUNA Vs. SHAIK M.A. AHAMMAD
LAWS(HYD)-2016-4-1
HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD
Decided on April 22,2016

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Sri M. Seetharama Murti, J. -The unsuccessful petitioners/plaintiffs had filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders dated 30.04.2014 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler passed in I.A. no.288 of 2013 in O.S. No.74 of 2011 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requesting to permit the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by adding paragraph 8(a) after paragraph (8) and also to permit to make necessary amendments in paragraph 10 (valuation paragraph) and also in the relevant portion of the plaint as stated in the affidavit and the petition list.
(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs ('the plaintiffs', for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants ('the defendants', for brevity). The other respondents are stated to be not necessary parties. I have perused the material record.
(3.) The facts, which are necessary to be stated as a prelude to this order, in brief, are as follows:- The plaintiff brought the suit for perpetual injunction inter alia claiming that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Kommineni Hanumathu and his brothers and that after their deaths, the suit property devolved upon K. Venkatappa and K. Sanjevee and that on 03.12.1990, K. Venkatappa and his family members partitioned the suit property and other properties and that in that partition, K. Venkatappa and others got the suit schedule property towards their share under partition deed dated 03.12.1990 and that the father of the plaintiffs got the said property under a family registered partition deed dated 17.06.1977 and also under a sale deed dated 04.12.1980 and that after the death of their father, the plaintiffs had succeeded to the suit property and had perfected their right, title and interest even by adverse possession also. The defendants had filed a written statement resisting the suit; they are inter alia contending that the 1st defendant had purchased the suit schedule property from third parties under registered sale deed dated 03.03.2011 and that he had already filed a suit in O.S. No.98 of 2011 against the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction. According to the plaintiffs, they are advised to seek amendment of the plaint and claim the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction as the defendants had denied their title in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs had filed the aforementioned interlocutory application before the trial Court. The defendants had resisted the application by filing a counter. On merits, the trial Court had dismissed the said petition. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.