Smt. Golla Janaki vs Mr.Kamsala Nagarjuna Achari
2022 Latest Caselaw 8076 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1018 OF 2022

Smt Golla Janaki, W/o.Nagaraju, Aged 32 years,
Occ: Housewife, R/o.Byravakunta Village,
Devarakonda Mandal, Kurnool District
                                                  ... Petitioner
                             Versus
Mr.Kamsala Nagarjuna Achari, S/o.Gowri Prasad,
Aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculture,
R/o. Byravakunta Village,
Devarakonda Mandal, Kurnool District
                                                   ... Respondent


Counsel for the petitioner     : M/s.A.Chandraiah Naidu
Counsel for respondent         : Mr.Sreekanth Reddy Ambati


                             ORDER:

The defendant in the Suit filed the above revision petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the

order dated 22.4.2022 in I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S. No.96 of

2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda.

2. The respondent being the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.96

of 2019 against the revision petitioner/defendant for grant of

permanent injunction. The schedule of the property is shown as

Acs.7.00 out of Acs.13.15 cents in Survey No.714/1 bounded by

East: Golla Nagaraju Land, West: Marati Veeranjineyulu Land,

North: Kamsala Nagaraju Achari, South: Jangala Ramanjineyulu

and Mahesh Land.

3. Pending the suit plaintiff filed I.A. No.142 of 2022 under

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking

amendment of the plaint schedule property. In the affidavit filed

in support of the said I.A., it was contended interalia that the

land in Survey No.714 is consisting total extent of Acs.13.15

cents; that out of love and affection maternal aunt by name

Smt.Golla Bala Nagamma @ Nagamma, W/o.Veeraiah gifted the

schedule property to the plaintiff by way of three gift settlement

deeds viz., (1) Land to an extent of Acs.3.00 under registered gift

settlement deed vide document No.739/2016 dated 11.3.2016;

(2) Land to an extent of Acs.3.00 under registered gift settlement

deed vide document No.740/2016 dated 11.3.2016; (3) Land to

an extent of Ac.1.00 under registered gift settlement deed vide

document No.741/2016 dated 11.3.2016; that the total extent is

Acs.7.00; that at the time of filing of the suit, the counsel by

oversight shown the total schedule property of Acs.7.00 in one

block, however, the schedule was not shown as per the

registered gift deeds and hence the application is filed seeking

amendment of the schedule property into Schedule A, B & C and

to add para No.7 in the plaint.

4. Counter affidavit was filed by the revision petitioner/

defendant opposing the application. It was contended inter alia

that the defendant is the absolute owner of the petition schedule

landed property in Survey No.714/2 to an extent of Acs.6.15

cents; that out of love and affection, her husband gifted the

above land to the defendant through a registered gift deed vide

document No.2076/2017 dated 28.6.2017; that survey No.714

was sub-divided into 714/1 and 714/2; that the defendant's

land admeasuring Acs.6.15 cents in survey No.714 fell into

survey No.714/2; that the said extent of Acs.6.15 cents is

situated towards western and eastern side of the defendant's

property; that the plaintiff is having land in survey No.714 to an

extent of Acs.4.77 cents towards western side of the defendant's

land, and another piece of land to an extent of Ac.1.73 cents and

Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.714/1; that the plaintiff's land is

situated in between the lands of the defendant and eventually

prayed to dismiss the application.

5. By an order dated 22.4.2022 the lower Court allowed the

application. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petition is filed.

6. Heard Mr.A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for

the respondent.

7. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant would contend

that proper reasons were not assigned in the affidavit filed in

support of the petition. The respondent/plaintiff filed the

application for grant of ad interim injunction. After grant of ad

interim injunction, the application is filed seeking amendment

and the same is impermissible. Learned counsel relied upon the

judgment in Muthyam Suryanarayana vs. Bondugula Varija

Reddy1.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the

order impugned in this revision petition.

9. As can be seen from the material on record, the suit is

filed for injunction simplicitor. The property mentioned in the

plaint schedule is an extent of Acs.7.00 out of Acs.13.15 cents

situated in survey No.714/1 showing it as a contiguous plot. By

virtue of the amendment, the plaintiff sought to divide the plaint

schedule property into Schedule A, B and C. Boundaries on

Eastern and Western side remain the same. According to the

plaintiff, he noticed the mistake qua the suit schedule after filing

of the suit and therefore filed the application seeking to amend

the plaint schedule as per the registered documents.

MANU/TL.0214/2021

10. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the

affidavit does not contain proper reasons for seeking amendment

and he relies upon the judgment in Muthyam Suryanarayana

vs. Bondugula Varija Reddy.

11. In the above cited case, the suit was filed and after the

trial Court granted ad interim injunction, the plaint was

amended. The observation of the Court therein is that the

proposed amendment would change the nature of the property

and hence the amendment was negatived. However, in the case

on hand, a perusal of the schedule filed along with the suit and

the proposed schedule, the boundaries on eastern side and

western side remain the same. The schedule is sought to be

changed in accordance with the registered documents. Extent of

the schedule remains the same as also boundaries on Eastern

and Western side. Neither the nature of the suit is changed nor

is the extent of the land changed. Thus, this court finds no

perversity in the order passed by the Court below. It is always

open to the revision petitioner to file additional written

statement by raising necessary pleas.

12. In view of the discussion above, since the judicious

discretion exercised by the trial Court is neither perverse nor

exceeding its jurisdiction, this Court finds no merit in the

revision.

13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No

order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions,

if any pending, shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI October 28, 2022.

vasu