RAMACHANDRAN (DIED) (R RAJAMMAL, R BARANIDHARAN AND R VAISHNAVI) Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER; EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU PRASANNA; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, H R AND C E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 446 of 2004 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents herein. The declaration has been sought on the ground that the suit property is not the property of the Religious Institution or Endowment of the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belong to one Narayana Rao and the plaintiff has become the tenant over the suit property for a long number of years and the said tenancy right has been converted into absolute right. Hence the suit has been filed on the ground that the plaintiff has acquired title by prescription and adverse possession.

(2.) Pending the suit, an application was filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 401 of 2006 seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that there should be declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, the relief of mandatory injunction and change in the description of the suit property, since oversight it has been wrongly given. The Court below has dismissed the said application by holding that the petitioner herein is trying to create a new case and the application has been filed after a delay of nearly 11/2 years. Challenging the same, the revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit has been filed based upon the plea of prescription and adverse possession against the original owner Narayana Rao. Therefore according to the learned Counsel, the inclusion of the ownership in the prayer is nothing a consequential one and the respondents will not be prejudiced by the same. The learned Counsel also submitted that the said amendment does not amount to introducing a new case or change in the cause of action. The learned Counsel also submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner has been dispossessed. Pending the suit, the suit will have to be amended for mandatory injunction instead of permanent injunction and the amendment for description of the property has to be allowed, since the same is a typographical error.