ANNAPPA Vs. D S SUGANDHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is taken up with the consent of parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in o. s. No. 969 of 1989 on the file of the principal civil judge, junior division, shimoga. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 1989. The petitioner sought for amendment of the plaint in la. No. Xviii. The trial court dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that it was belated. Aggrieved by the Order of the trial court in la. No. Xviii, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this crp.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed in favour of sugandaraj shetty and hanumappa is not binding upon the plaintiff and prayed for cancellation of the sale deeds and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. It was submitted that by mistake the kharab portion of 1 acre 8 guntas was not included in the prayer of the plaint and also in the schedule. The kharab portion of 1 acre 8 guntas was in sy. No. 122 and the same survey number was divided into 122/1 and 122/2. The said kharab portion comes in sy. No. 122/1. It was submitted that reference to this land consisting of 1 acre 8 guntas in sy. No. 122/1 was clearly mentioned in the plaint at paragraph 5. However, it was not included in the schedule by oversight. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint.