E MALLAIAH Vs. M SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 6-3-2003 passed in I.A. No.201 of 2003 in O.S. No.150 of 1996 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for amendment of a plaint.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.150 of 1996 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal. They filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.54-16 guntas comprising of survey numbers 293, 294 and 295. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they purchased the suit schedule land from the original pattedar namely Mirza Hussain Baig S/o Hyder Baig on 15-5-1964 for a valuable consideration of Rs.85/- and that since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. The legal heirs of Mirza Hussain Baig did not dispute the title right and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land and as such they perfected their title by prescription by adverse possession to the knowledge of real owner and others. When the defendants who have no manner of right title and interest over the suit schedule land attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment, they filed the suit for injunction simplicitor against the defendants. The relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the plaint reads as follows: "(i) A Decree of perpetual injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants herein, their agents, servants, followers, etc., or any other person or persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land, agricultural land bearing Sy.No.293 to the extent of Ac.20-29 guntas, Sy.No.294 admeasuring Ac.20-12 guntas Sy.No.295 admeasuring Ac.13-15 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.54-16 guntas, situated at Ravalkole Village Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which are more particularly described in the Schedule hereto in any manner whatsoever. (ii) Costs of the suit be awarded; (iii) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled much also be awarded;"

(3.) The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the defendants that the suit land originally owned and possessed by Mirza Hussain Baig and the said Mirza Hussain Baig died leaving behind his two wives Bismillah Bee and Wasi Begum and two daughters Rasheeda Sultana and Khawish Fatima as his legal heirs. The legal heirs of original pattedar in the capacity as owners and possessors sold the suit schedule land through their constituted attorney Banwarilal Jain to the defendants vendors under registered sale deed. D-1 purchased Ac.9-12 guntas in S.No.912, Ac.1-24 guntas in S.No.299 under registered sale deed dated 12.9.1990. D-2 purchased Ac.9-29 guntas in S.No.294 under registered sale deed dated 12.9.1990. D-3 purchased Ac.11-00 in Sy.No.295 under registered sale deed dated 12.9.1990. D-4 purchased Ac.9- 29 guntas in S.No.293 and Ac.1-11 guntas in S.No.294 under a registered sale deed dated 12.9.1990. D-5 purchased Ac. 11-00 under registered sale deed dated 12.9.1990. Thus D-l to D-5 herein acquired title and possession over the suit land. The suit land was computed in the holding of the heirs of the original pattedar in the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal vide orders dated 16-6-1977 in C.C.No.2023/M/75. The plaintiffs are not in possession of any piece of suit land at any point of time. The suit for injunction sirnplicitor filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration. The plaintiffs filed I.A.609/ 96 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction. The defendants carried the matter in appeal by filing C.M.A.No.34 of 1999. The said appeal came to be allowed setting aside the orders passed in I.A.No.609 of 1996. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully carried the matter to the High Court by filing C.R.P.No.3426 of 2000. The Trial Court settled the issues and posted the case for trial. While so, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.201 of 2003 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment of the plaint reads as follows: