R NARSIMHA REDDY Vs. RONDLA NARSI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question posed for our consideration by the petitioner-plaintiff in a suit for partition is to the effect whether paragraph 5 (A) which was sought to be added in the plaint and which was permitted to be amended by the trial court could have been refused to be introduced in the plaint by amendment, by the impugned judgment of the High Court.

(2.) It has to be kept in view that as per the plaint, there was no previous partition of properties. A document dated 24th April, 1974, was sought to be produced by the respondent defendants to show that there was an earlier partition. That document being unregistered was ultimately impounded and additional stamp duty was paid. That is how the document is on the record. In that light the proposed amendment was sought to be made.

(3.) When we turn to the proposed amendment it recites that there was no earlier partition and the said document was sham and bogus and was also not signed. In support of that the first part of paragraph 5 (A) , sought to be introduced, tries to aver about the relevant evidence in this connection. So far as that is concerned in the impugned judgment itself the High Court has given liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence and take all possible pleas in connection with admissibility of the document as well as about the subsequent events, how the document is to be interpreted and considered.