ANJINAPPA Vs. DODDYELLAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the suit in O.S. No. 654/2012 before the trial Court is that the plaintiff filed the said suit for the relief of declaration to declare that he is the sole and absolute owner and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and to declare that the alleged sale deed executed by Akkayyamma in the name of H. Munireddy dated 15.1.1959 and alleged sale deed executed by the H. Munireddy in the name of one Chikkanna Dated 8.9.1962 and the alleged partition deed got registered between defendant Nos. 1 to 3 dated 26.6.1999 and the alleged partition deed got registered in between defendant Nos. 1 and 4 to 8 dated 20.8.2011 are concocted and fraudulent documents and not binding on him. He has also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants or any person or persons claiming under or through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The petitioner -plaintiff also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the pleadings as well as relief column and the said application was opposed by the respondents -defendants by filing objection statement. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner -plaintiff sought to correct the extent of the suit schedule property in the body of the plaint as 4 acres 15 guntas in stead of 2 acres 7 1/2 guntas. In addition to that, after the prayer column, alternatively he wanted to insert the prayer to grant decree for equitable partition of the suit schedule property and separate possession of 1/2 share therein to the plaint by metes and bounds and another relief to be incorporated as 4 acres 15 guntas instead of 2 acres 7 1/2 guntas in the second line of the description of the suit property under the schedule to the plaint and to substitute the Sarkari Kere Angala in the place of western boundary shown in the schedule to the plaint. The trial Court after considering the merit of the application rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondents -defendants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff made submission that the suit schedule property was under the ownership of the parents of the plaintiff and in the sale deed executed in the year 1959 by mother of the plaintiff, father of the plaintiff was not made as the party to the said sale deed. His father died intestate and he is the only son to his parents. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff filed the suit seeking absolute ownership over the suit schedule property and by way of alternative relief, the plaintiff also sought for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule property. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when plaintiffs father's interest was not at all transferred virtually under the said sale deed, he can claim so far as share of his father, being legal representative of his father. Hence, for the said claim, the plaintiff cannot bring another suit which leads to multiplicity of the proceedings. If the amendment application is allowed, it will not prejudice the other side as evidence is not yet commenced. The defendant was permitted twice to file his additional written statement and to cross examine the plaintiff. So far as the amended pleadings are concerned, if the amendment is not allowed it leads to denial of necessary reliefs to the plaintiff in the very suit. The trial Court without considering all these aspects has wrongly rejected the application.