DOMMARAJU BEERENDRA VARMA Vs. DOMMARAJU SUREKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.55 of 2018 against the petitioner herein, before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac.14.50 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.208/A of P.V. Puram, Satyavedu Mandal, Tirupathi Division, Chittoor District. The respondent set out the boundaries of the land in the schedule attached to the plaint in the following manner: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_20_LAWS(APH)4_2024_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement, in which the petitioner took a plea that the original document, on the basis of which, the respondent was claiming title, was a fabricated document and in any event, the said document did not set out any boundaries of the suit schedule property while the respondent was trying to set out such boundaries and the same was not permissible. The petitioner also took various other pleas which are not germane to the present case.

(3.) The respondent, after trial had commenced and a witness had been examined in chief, had filed I.A.No.816 of 2023 for amending the Northern and Southern boundaries of the plaint schedule. It was the case of the respondent that the Northern boundary should have been the land of D. Kodandapani Raju and the Southern boundary should be land of V. Masthan. However, the plaint reflected the Northern boundary as the land of V. Masthan and the Sourthern boundary as the land of D. Kodandapani Raju. The said mistake is said to have occurred on account of inadvertence and the said mistake was realized when the learned counsel for the respondent was going through the entire plaint for the purpose of producing necessary evidence before the Court. It was contended that the said amendment would not in any manner effect the merits of the case or cause prejudice to the defense raised by the petitioner and the same could be allowed.