Guntakatta Narayanaswamy vs Kasthuri Subramanyam
2021 Latest Caselaw 5412 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

  CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.1576 and 1580 of 2019

COMMON ORDER:-

        As these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of two

applications in the same suit and are connected with each

other, they are being disposed of by way of a common order.


     2.     The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.75 of 2014

in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, for

permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from

interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property

consisting of Ac.0.18 cents of land in Sy.No.9/9, Surutupalli

Village, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. The case of the petitioner was that he was the

adopted son of one Kasthuri Venkataiah, who was the owner

of the suit schedule property; the said Kasthuri Venkataiah

had executed a Registered Settlement Deed on 09.12.1994

which was revoked on 30.08.1999; thereafter, another

registered Settlement Deed was granted in favour of the

plaintiff on 18.12.2003 and in view of the aforesaid deeds of

settlement, he become owner of the property and the

defendants/respondents herein, who had no right or title in

plaint schedule property, were trying to trespass into the

plaint schedule property.

4. The respondents filed a written statement

submitting that late Sri Kasthuri Venkataiah after having

RRR,J CRP.Nos.1576&1580 of 2019

executed the 2nd Registered Settlement Deed dated 18.12.2003

had again revoked the said document, by way of a Registered

Deed of Revocation, dated 07.05.2005 which has been

suppressed by the petitioner. They also took the plea that the

late Sri Kasthuri Venkataiah had not adopted the petitioner

herein. Various other grounds were also raised in the written

statement.

5. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1129 of 2018, seeking

an amendment of the Plaint and I.A.No. 1130 of 2018 to

amend the rejoinder filed to the counter claim of the

Respondents, to include a paragraph giving details of the

adoption of the petitioner by late Sri Kasthuri Venkataiah.

This application is said to have been moved in view of the

denial of adoption of the plaintiff by late Kasthuri Venkataiah

in the written statement.

6. The respondents filed counter affidavits

contending that the question of deciding whether the

petitioner was adopted or not by late Sri Kasthuri Venkataiah

would not arise in the present suit as it was a suit for

injunction simpliciter. The respondents contended that the

suit revolved on the question of who is in possession of the

suit schedule property and not on the basis of ownership or on

the ground that the petitioner would be the owner of the

property. In the circumstances, the respondents contended

that application is not maintainable as the said application

does not in any manner assist the Court in coming to a

RRR,J CRP.Nos.1576&1580 of 2019

conclusion as whether the petitioner is in possession of the

land or not.

7. The trial Court after considering both sides and

relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Fritiz T.M.Clement and another Vs. Sudhakaran Nadar and

another1 and Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs.

Narayanaswamy and sons and others2., had held that

amendment of pleadings would be permissible where such

amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the issues

before the Court. The trial Court then took the view that the

question of whether the petitioner is adopted son of late Sri

Kasthuri Venkataiah or not is not an issue which is relevant

for proper adjudication of the suit. Consequently, the

applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed by two

separate orders dated 12.04.2019. Aggrieved by the said

orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the

present revision petitions.

8. Heard Sri V.Venu Gopala Rao, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri T.Janardhana Rao, learned counsel for

the respondents.

9. This suit is a suit for injunction simpliciter without

declaration of title being sought. In such a situation, the only

issue that would arise before the trial Court is on the question

of possession of the said land. It is true that ownership of the

AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1148

(2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 84

RRR,J CRP.Nos.1576&1580 of 2019

land could be an incidental issue while deciding the question

of possession. However, in the present case, the claim of the

petitioner appears to be more on the ground of settlement

deeds rather than by inheritance.

10. In such a situation, the claim of possession over

the suit schedule property by the petitioner has to be decided

on the basis of the evidence placed by the petitioner before the

trial Court to demonstrate his possession. The question

whether the petitioner is the adopted son of late Sri Kasthuri

Venkataiah or not is not relevant for a determination of the

above issue.

11. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to

interfere with the orders of the trial Court.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil

Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 21-12-2021 RJS

RRR,J CRP.Nos.1576&1580 of 2019

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.1576 and 1580 of 2019

Date : 21-12-2021

RJS