JOIS BHEEMASENACHAR Vs. THEKKALAKOTA BASIAH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order of the learned District Munsiff, Bellary, in O.S. No. 392 of 1953, dismissing his application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as under: The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the lower Court. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of his title to the schedule property, for possession of the same and also for recovery of mesue profits. The title that the plaintiff urged in support of his claim was that his father purchased the schedule property from one Srinivasachar. The plaintiff's contention now is that he does not acquire title to the schedule property in that way ; that such an allegation was made in the plaint due to some bona fide mistake and ignorance on his part ; that the real source of title which he wants to set up is that the schedule property actually belonged to his father's maternal grand-father and Srinivasachar as co-owners ; that in the division between them the schedule property fell to plaintiff's father's maternal grand-father's share ; that from him the property passed to plaintiff's father's mother and then to plaintiff's father's family ; that at the time of division between the plaintiff's father and his brothers the schedule property fell to plaintiff's father's share under a registered partition deed dated 14-2-1889 and that after his death the plaintiff has become entitled to it. To have the necessary amendment of the plaint in this behalf the plaintiff filed an application in the lower Court praying that the portion in the plaint setting up the purchase of the schedule property by his father from Srinivasachar may be deleted and that he may be allowed, to put forth the new source of title as mentioned above.

(3.) The defendants opposed this application on the ground that the application was belated and that the amendment, if allowed would have the effect of converting the plaint into one of a totally different and inconsistent character. This contention found favour with the learned Munsiff who dismissed the plaintiff's application. As against that order of dismissal the present revision petition is preferred.