K. RAJINIKANTHA REDDY Vs. SMT. K. RAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dated 19.06.2017, passed in I.A. No. 166 of 2017 in O.S. No. 269 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, wherein an application made under Order 8, Rule 9 of C.P.C., to receive additional written statement, was dismissed, the present C.R.P., is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts in issue are as under: The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the above suit for declaration of right and title over the plaint schedule property. The averments in the plaint would show that one Munaswamy Reddy, Govinda Reddy, Venkata Reddy and one Kone Reddy are the brothers constituting a joint family. The land in Sy. Nos. 230/1, 230/2 and 232 belong to their joint family. The said land was locally called as "Dora Cheruvu Kinda Land". The land in Sy. No. 230/1 is situated on the North-West corner of Sy. No. 230 and to the East of the land in Sy. no. 232. It is stated that portions of the land in Sy. No. 230/1 were merged with land in Sy. No. 232 and 230/2. The above mentioned brothers have divided the above properties and other properties, by means of family arrangement in the year 1952 and a partition list was reduced into writing. The plaint schedule land fell to the share of one Govinda Reddy, who is said to have sold the land to the brother of the plaintiff by name L.N. Muraleeswara Reddy. Subsequently, the said land was allotted to the plaintiff in the partition between herself and her family members. It is stated that since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The averments in the affidavit show that the family members of the plaintiff have planted mango garden after purchase and they have also fenced their portion of land including the plaint schedule property. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds were said to have been issued to the plaintiff. It was further stated that in the sale deed executed in favour of the brother of the plaintiff, the details of the land with boundaries were mentioned though an incorrect survey number was mentioned. While things stood thus, the defendant started interfering with the property, which lead to filing of the present suit.

(3.) A written statement came to be filed disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the plaint. It is stated that even the boundaries mentioned, to the plaint schedule land, are incorrect. As per the written statement, the correct boundaries are East: land of Govinda Reddy i.e., the land of the defendant; South: land of Chiranjeevi; West:land of Munaswamy Reddy at present the land of Vasudeva Reddy; North:Chittoor Palamaner Highway. It is further stated in the written statement that the disputed land is the land of the defendant and that his father never sold or alienated the same in favour of the brother of the plaintiff. He denied the execution of the sale deed and also the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. He refers to the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor wherein the orders of the R.D.O., in cancelling the entries made in the revenue records was upheld. The written statement also shows that the defendant sought leave of the court to file additional written statement.