T VEERA VENKATA RAO Vs. TIKKANA VENKATA RAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who instituted the suit in O. S.No.834 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry filed I. A.No.3417 of 2006 seeking amendment of plaint for the relief of declaration of vested remainder rights etc. in the plaint schedule property. On dismissal of said LA. through the order, dated 17.6.2009, the plaintiff filed the present revision to revise the same.

(2.) The revision petitioner-plaintiff initially instituted the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating or selling away the suit schedule property to third parties and for other reliefs contending that the first defendant is the wife of father of the plaintiff by name Muniyya and they took divorce in or about 1959-60 and later Muniyya married one Tikkana Mangayamma, who gave birth to the petitioner-plaintiff. Muniyya's sister- Binde Mangayamma executed a registered settlement deed, dated 5.8.1968 in respect of the suit schedule property, and that the said settlement deed was executed for the maintenance of the first wife of Muniyya i.e. the first defendant and thus, the first defendant is not having absolute rights in the schedule property. Since the date of settlement deed, the first defendant has been enjoying the suit schedule property by cultivating the same. Since the first defendant is not having any absolute rights over the suit schedule property, with a dishonest intention and with ulterior motive is contemplating to sell the suit schedule property to third parties and therefore, she should be permanently restrained from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties. Later, as the first defendant alienated the suit schedule property by executing sale deeds, the plaintiff got amended the plaint impleading defendants 2 and 3 in I.A.Nos.1699 of 2003 and 3743 of 2003 and sought for injunction against them and for the relief to declare the alienations under sale deeds, dated 17.4.2002 and 19.9.2005 made in favour of defendants 2 and 3 by the first defendant pending the suit, as not binding on the plaintiff. Later, the petitioner- plaintiff filed the impugned LA. seeking . amendment of the plaint to add the relief to declare his vested remainder right in the plaint schedule property by holding that the sale deeds, dated 17.4.2002 and 19.9.2005 are not binding on him after the life time of first defendant.

(3.) The lower Court by the impugned order observed that the first defendant in the written statement filed on 10.4.2002 while admitting the execution of registered settlement deed raised a specific defence contending that in view of recitals in the settlement deed, after her enjoying the suit schedule property, it shall devolve upon male proginee born, through her alone but not the male proginee of either Muniyya, or his family members and as such, she having taken divorce from Muniyya in the year 1960 and having not been remarried so far, has no chance for begetting children, which in turn entitles her to sell out the plaint schedule property being absolute owner of the same and that the defendants 2 and 3 being subsequent purchasers are claiming rights over the suit schedule property. Therefore, in view of the specific defence taken by the first defendant in the written statement, dated 10.4.2002 disputing the status of the petitioner-plaintiff as vested remainder holder over the suit schedule property, the petitioner having kept quiet for a long period, filed the impugned application only on 13.12.2006 seeking amendment of pleadings for insertion of relief of declaration for declaring himself to be vested remainder holder of the suit schedule property. Observing so, the lower Court dismissed the impugned application being belated one.