LAWS(APH)-2004-4-66

PATCHIPULUSU MAHALAKSHMI Vs. NAGOLU RAMANAMMA

Decided On April 08, 2004
PATCHIPULUSU MAHALAKSHMI Appellant
V/S
NAGOLU RAMANAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2, O.S. No.77 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram moved an application in I.A. No.2758 of 2002 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') praying to amend the plaint schedule by adding Item No.5 to the plaint-A schedule.

(2.) The first plaintiff, who is the' mother-in-law of the first revision petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties and had died during the pendency of the suit and the daughters of the first plaintiff were brought on record as legal representatives, as Plaintiffs 2 to 5 and a preliminary decree was passed for partition of plaint-A schedule immovable properties. Aggrieved by the said preliminary decree the revision petitioners - Defendants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal in A.S. No.737 of 1987 on the file of this Court. It is also stated that this Court by judgment dated 5th day of April, 2002 had remanded the matter with certain directions and in view of the same, the said property also has to be included as Item No. 5 in the plaint-A schedule. Hence, the defendants filed the aforesaid Interlocutory Application for the relief of amendment of plaint-A schedule.

(3.) The said application was opposed by the sixth respondent in the said application stating that the suit was filed in the year 1984 and the defendants filed written statements at the earliest point of time and they had not taken the stand that the saw mill property is also the joint family property. It was further stated that though the defendants were aware that the property is in enjoyment of Mr. P. Sanyasi Rao, they have not raised the said objection at the appropriate time and having kept quiet for 18 years and having allowed the trespassers to be in possession beyond the statutory period, the revision petitioners- defendants 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to pray for the amendment of the plaint.