D.VASNTHA Vs. P.VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur in I.A. No.119 of 2014 in O.S. No.76 of 2006 dtd. 15/10/2014, wherein and whereby, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking amendment of the plaint for adding some more items in the plaint schedule properties.

(2.) The case of the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court in brief is that she filed suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties against the respondents, wherein she has shown four (04) items of immovable properties and recently she came to know that R1 R2/ D1 D2, purchased the property out of joint family income and filed petition to amend the plaint schedule property to include those properties.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter before the trial Court denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that 1st item of petition schedule property to an extent of Ac.2.55 cents in Sy. No.162/1C is the self-acquired property of respondent Nos.1 and 2, which they purchased under registered sale deed dtd. 8/8/1994 for valid consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. They submit that the 2nd item of petition schedule property to an extent of 0.28 cents in Sy. No.182/7 is the self-acquired property of Mr Ramakrishnaiah, who purchased under registered sale deed dtd. 22/6/1997, which is the subject matter of appeal proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court and 3rd item of petition schedule property is site to an extent of Ac.0.02 11/12 cents in Sy. No.227, which is the property of respondent Nos.1 and 2, as they purchased the same under registered sale deed dtd. 11/4/1983 for valid consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 4th item of petition schedule property to an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy. No.227 which is also purchased by respondent Nos.1 and 2, under registered sale deed dtd. 20/2/1982 and they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents submits that as they worked in private companies, they purchased properties, out of their own income, which petitioner intended to include in the plaint schedule which is not permissible under law and the claim of the petitioner is also time barred. They pray to dismiss the petition.