Telangana High Court
Smt. Kottakonda Saraswathi vs Smt. Chennareddy Ramanamma on 21 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2986 OF 2024
ORDER:
Assailing the validity and legality of the order dated
16.07.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at
Nizamabad in IA.No.254 of 2023 in OS.No.92 of 2017, this Civil
Revision Petition is filed.
2. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the
application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying the Court to
permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and allow the plaintiff to
pay balance court fee regarding recovery of possession.
3. Heard Sri T.V.Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner.
No representation on behalf of the respondents despite service of
notice on them, therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on
the material placed on record.
4. The revision petitioner is defendant No.2, respondent No.1
herein is plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.1 in
the suit before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.
5. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff filed a suit
for declaration and consequential perpetual injunction in respect of
LNA, J
the suit schedule property and further, for cancellation of GPA
document bearing No.3150/2015 dated 18.03.2015 executed by
plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 and for declaration of
registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4162/2015 and
5677/2017, dated 18.04.2015 and 05.08.2017, respectively, in
respect of the suit schedule property as null and void and not
binding on the plaintiff.
6. The defendants entered appearance in the suit. During the
pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid application.
She averred that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2, in
collusion with defendant No.1, filed false criminal case against her,
vide CC.No.873 of 2017, however, the criminal Court found her
not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 427, 448 and
506 IPC and acquitted her and on appeal, the said judgment was
confirmed by the High Court, vide judgment dated 26.02.2020 in
Crl.A.No.36 of 2019. The plaintiff further averred that after filing
of criminal case, defendant No.2 has got her arrested and
immediately, defendant No.2 illegally occupied the suit schedule
property. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff prayed the Court
LNA, J
to amend the plaint for including the relief of recovery of
possession of the suit schedule property.
7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counters resisting the
application and contended that the plaintiff executed GPA
document bearing No.3150/2015 dated 18.03.2015 in favour of
defendant No.1 and also executed registered sale deeds bearing
document Nos.4162/2015 and 5677/2017, dated 18.04.2015 and
05.08.2017, respectively, in respect of the suit schedule property
and physical possession was also delivered. Therefore, the
application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. The trial Court vide impugned order allowed the application
by primarily observing that as per Article 65 of Limitation Act, the
limitation period for filing suit for recovery of possession of
immovable property or any interest based on title is 12 years. The
plaintiff has filed suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit
schedule property and after a period of 5 ½ years from the date of
filing of the suit, she filed the application for amendment of the
prayer in the plaint stating that she was illegally dispossessed by
the defendants from the suit schedule property and therefore, the
same is within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article
LNA, J
65 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court further observed that no
injustice would be caused to the defendants if the application is
allowed and the rights of the parties would be decided only after
full-fledged trial and accordingly, allowed the application. Being
aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 filed the present Revision
Petition.
9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2
contended that the trial Court erroneously allowed the application
without properly appreciating the facts and the legal position. He
further contended that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of
title suppressing the fact that she was not in possession of the suit
schedule property. He further contended that according to the
plaintiff, she was dispossessed from the suit schedule property in
the year 2018, whereas the application is filed after 5 ½ years of
filing of the suit without explaining the delay for the same.
Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be
set aside.
10. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and
consequential perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property and further, for cancellation of GPA document bearing
LNA, J
No.3150/2015 dated 18.03.2015 executed by plaintiff in favour of
defendant No.1 and for declaration of registered sale deeds bearing
document Nos.4162/2015 and 5677/2017, dated 18.04.2015 and
05.08.2017, respectively, in respect of the suit schedule property,
as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is the specific
case of the plaintiff that after filing of the suit, a criminal case was
filed against her, she was arrested and in the meanwhile, defendant
No.2 illegally occupied the suit schedule property and hence, the
application for amendment of the plaint to include the prayer of
relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The
trial Court by referring to Article 65 of the Limitation Act has
allowed the said application.
11. The period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of
possession of immovable property is 12 years either with title or
without title. In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff filed the
application, seeking amendment of the plaint to include the relief of
recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, after 5 ½
years from the date of her alleged dispossession from the suit
schedule property, which is within the limitation period of 12 years
as prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the
LNA, J
trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in
allowing the application and it has rightly observed that the rights
of the parties will be decided after full-fledged trial of the suit.
12. In the light of the above facts and the legal position, this
Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:21.03.2025
dr
