CHIDRI ASHABEE Vs. S SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed OS.No.269 of 1999, in the Court of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents herein, for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of a house bearing No. 1-4-308/19, admeasuring 200 Sq.yards, at Siddiqi Bazaar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, fully described in the schedule. Apart from that relief, she claimed a decree for Rs.36,000.00 for use and occupation of the suit premises and for Rs.20,000.00 towards value of the superstructure, and further damages at the rate of Rs.2,000.00 per month, till the date of delivery of possession. The respondents resisted the suit and filed a written statement. The trial of the suit is in progress.

(2.) The petitioner filed IA.No.163 of 2005 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to permit her to amend the plaint, to incorporate the plea of delivery of possession and for cancellation of as many as 5 sale deeds. Apart from that, she also filed I.A.No.162 of 2005, to implead three individuals mentioned therein, as defendants to the suit, and IA.No.161 of 2005, under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, to receive 16 documents, mentioned therein. Through separate orders dated 6.2.2006, the trial Court allowed I.A.Nos. 161 and 162 of 2005, but dismissed IA No.163 of 2005. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(3.) Sri K. Narasimha Chary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the averments in the plaint covered the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession, cancellation of the relevant documents and recovery of damages, and due to oversight, the reliefs of recovery of possession and cancellation of documents were not claimed. As regards the cancellation of documents, it was pleaded that since the documents came to be executed, after the petitioner purchased the property through document dated 28.7.1974, she did not feel the necessity of seeking any specific prayer, and on realizing that the sale transaction covered by the documents would have a bearing on the suit claim, the relief as to cancellation of sale deeds was also prayed for. At a later stage, the learned Counsel supplemented the arguments, by placing reliance upon certain decided cases. He contends that the question as to whether the possession of the respondents became adverse to the petitioner, would be known only after the amendment is allowed and the respondents filed written statement, and the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.