Vangapalli Seetha Ramulu vs Anumandla Malla Reddy
2025 Latest Caselaw 3726 Tel

Telangana High Court

Vangapalli Seetha Ramulu vs Anumandla Malla Reddy on 28 May, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

                                        1
                                                                       crp_409_2025
                                                                              NBK, J


      THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
              CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.409 of 2025
ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, at Thorrur, (for short, trial Court) in I.A.No.693 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2010. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

2. The facts of the case, so far as relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision petition, are that the plaintiff filed the Suit in the year 2010 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the property i.e., H.No.7-31 (264 square yards), situate at Narsimhulapet village and mandal, Warangal District (suit schedule property) and, along with the Suit, he has also filed I.A.No.43 of 2010 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction; however, as he could not prove prima facie possession over the suit schedule property, the said Application I.A.No.43 of 2010 was dismissed on merits on 29.11.2010. Thereafter, in the year 2012, the plaintiff filed a petition i.e., I.A.No.367 of 2012 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint from "permanent injunction" to "declaration of title and recovery of possession", and the petition was allowed on merits on 07.11.2013. While so, now the plaintiff filed a petition, i.e., I.A.No.693 of 2024 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of first three lines of paragraph No.4 of the plaint - particularly the year 2001 as 1994 by making the following amendment, which reads as follows:

"The Defendants are no way concerned with the suit land. The Plaintiff is in possession over the suit land since its purchase in the year 1994, no one objected for his possession much less the Defendants".

crp_409_2025 NBK, J

3. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the application by observing that in the year 2012 the plaint was earlier permitted to be amended from permanent injunction to declaration of title and recovery of possession by taking a lenient view for proper adjudication of the matter; and that it shows the petitioner has knowledge that he was not in possession over the suit schedule property, and after 11 years of amendment of suit, the plaintiff filed the present application seeking permission to again amend the plaint by stating that he has been in adverse possession of the suit schedule property since 1994. It was further observed by the trial Court that if the version of the plaintiff with regard to adverse possession is believed to be true, why he filed the earlier petition for amendment from permanent injunction to declaration of title and recovery of possession, and that if the present amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit into relief of adverse possession, when the suit was initially for the relief of bare injunction and subsequently amended to declaration of title and recovery of possession; and the trial Court accordingly dismissed the application.

4. Heard Mr. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff; and Mr. D.V. chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.3. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the trial Court misconceived that the petitioner admitted in the petition I.A.No.367 of 2012 that he is not in possession of the suit schedule property and sought for amendment of the suit to that of declaration of title and recovery of possession instead of injunction simplicitor; that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the amended fair copy of the plaint was filed on 21.11.2013 wherein para 7(A) was added specifically mentioning that "the plaintiff has

crp_409_2025 NBK, J

purchased the suit schedule property under simple sale deed, dated 20.04.1994 from the 1st defendant for consideration of Rs.15,000/- which was paid in lumpsum....."; that the factum of purchase of property is already on record as on 20.04.1994; that the suit can never be for the relief of adverse possession but the adverse possession would be a component in proving the entitlement of the petitioner for the relief of declaration of suit. Learned counsel relies on Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply1, N.C. Bansal v. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation2, Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan 3, Pankaja v. Yellappa4, Haridas Aildas Thadani v. Godrej Rustom Kermani 5, Suraj Prakash Bhasin v. Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin6.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/defendant No.3 relies on Sogra Begum v. Ghousia Begum7, MashyakGrihirmanSahakariSanathaMaryadit v. Usman Habib Dhuka8, and contends that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the civil revision petition is devoid of merit.

7. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the suit was filed in the year 2010 initially for permanent injunction, and later in the year 2012, the plaint was amended to that of declaration of title and recovery of possession. It may be noted that along with the suit, the application filed for temporary injunction was dismissed on merits, thereby it is evident that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property, furthermore, the amendment of

(1969) 1 SCC 869

(2018) 2 SCC 347

(2005) 13 SCC 89

(2004) 6 SCC 415

AIR 1983 SC 319

AIR 1981 SC 485

2017 (5) Andh LD 122

2013 (9) SCC 485

crp_409_2025 NBK, J

plaint to that of recovery of possession also buttresses the factum of not being in possession. The declaration of title being a matter of trial based on the pleadings and the alleged simple sale deed of the year 1994, even assuming that the present application for amendment of first three lines of the plaint to the version as sought by the plaintiff is allowed, it would tantamount to admitting to the plaintiff's possession of suit schedule property from ante date in the year 1994, and would be prejudicial to the case of the defendants at the threshold, and would also contradict the dismissal of injunction simplicitor on merits in the first place, based on the fact that he was not in possession as of 2010, which prompted him for amendment of plaint to that of declaration of title and recovery of possession.

8. At this juncture, it is to be noted that under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the plaint could be amended, however, the same cannot change the nature of suit and give rise to a new cause of action. In the instant case, the amendment, if allowed would virtually raise a new ground of adverse possession since 1994, as the proposed amendment seeks to alter the plaint effectively to that of - "the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land since its purchase in the year 1994 and no one objected for his possession, much less the defendants". If this was in fact true, then there would have not been a question of seeking recovery of possession, or dismissal of injunction simiplicitor application in the first place and that too after hearing on merits of the application. Furthermore, the plaintiff seeks this new amendment after eleven years of the first amendment carried out in the year 2012. The reasoning of the trial Court that allowing of the present petition would alter the nature of suit to that of adverse possession is well founded and does not require interference.

crp_409_2025 NBK, J

9. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the ratio in those judgments is with regard to the amendments filed at early stages of the suit, or whether the amendments affect the original filing dateand if so whether such amendments are barred by limitation.

10. In the instant case, the petitioner sought amendment to the plaint to the effect that he is in possession since the date of purchase in 1994 and no one objected to it, when the fact of the matter is that when the suit was initially filed in 2010 for permanent injunction, his interlocutory application for temporary injunction was dismissed on merits as he could not prove his possession, which prompted him to amend the plaint in 2012 to declaration of title and recovery of possession; and therefore permitting the proposed amendment after eleven years would cause prejudice to the suit by claim of adverse possession since 1994. Even as per the grounds of this civil revision petition, it is the case of petitioner that the nature of suit would not change to that of adverse possession, but the adverse possession would be a component in proving the entitlement of the petitioner. This is precisely what is implied by the trial Court in the impugned order when it said that the nature of suit would change to adverse possession. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the civil revision petition.

11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 28th May, 2025

ksld

crp_409_2025 NBK, J

THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.409 of 2025

28th May, 2025

ksld