YELLAMMA Vs. SIDDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Sri.Rajanna L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint which came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the stand now taken in the proposed amendment is contrary to the stand taken in the plaint. Further, that the proposed amendment touches upon the cross-examination of DW.2 and the later stand in the proposed amendment is contrary to the earlier stand of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners filed a suit for a relief of declaration that the two sale deeds are not binding and permanent injunction and now the petitioners have filed an application to seek additional prayer of possession which is consequential to the main prayer. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by permitting the amendment.

(3.) Per contra, Sri.T.C.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11 supports the impugned order, filed the statement of objections to the writ petition and submits that the petitioners and others have filed O.S.No.497/2014 seeking relief of partition. In the said suit, in respect of suit schedule 'A' property the decree came to be passed and in respect of suit schedule 'B' property, suit was dismissed. It is submitted that schedule 'B' property in O.S.No.497/2014 is the subject matter of the suit in question. Hence, the very suit filed by the petitioners itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that after the cross-examination of the defendants/witnesses the present application is filed which is highly belated and it takes a contradictory stand. The trial Court considered the same and rightly rejected the same which does not call for interference.