H V SRINIVASAMURTHY Vs. H C SHIVARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/party-in-person filed these Writ Petitions against the order dated 07.04.2016 made in O.S.No.35/2007 dismissing I.A.No.15 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the plaint and I.A.No.16 filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce documents.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.15 to 21 and there was no partition in the joint family properties and to declare alleged release deed dated 03.07.1943, if existing as void and have it duly cancelled as also its registration under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendants filed written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff for relief sought for is not maintainable. It is further contended that the partition amongst 1st defendant is already effected and even the property documents have already effected and now suit filed without seeking cancellation nor reopen the suit filed for partition is not maintainable. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) When the matter was posted for defendants' evidence, at that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.15 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint for inclusion of 8 items of the properties contending that recently he came to know that the proposed properties under the amendment are also joint family properties and he was not having the knowledge earlier when the suit was filed. Therefore, he sought permission to include proposed properties as joint family properties. He also filed another application-IA No.16 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce list of documents in support of his case stating that the documents proposed are necessary to adjudicate the matter between the parties. The defendants filed the objections to the said applications reiterating the averments made in the written statement contending that the very suit is not maintainable and the applications filed are also not maintainable.