K RAM REDDY Vs. K KANTHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Saroornagar, in I.A.No. 563 of 1996 in O.S.No. 48 of 1993 on 14-6-1996 refusing to grant permission to the plaintiff/petitioner to amend the plaint 'B' schedule by inserting Sy.Nos. 404,414 and 417, situated at Atapur village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and lands in Sy.Nb. 21, situated at Nandimusalaiahguda village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad District.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court filed O.S.No. 48 of 1993 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The properties shown in Schedules A and B of the plaint were, according to the petitioner, their joint family properties and the same were agricultural lands. Item Nos. 5 to 8 of schedule B lands and Sy.Nos. 404, 414 and 417 were purchased Under an agreement of sale dated 15-1-1975 in the name of defendant No. 3 respondent No. 3 for and on behalf of the joint family and, according to the petitioner, since the date of purchase they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The same were declared by respondent No. 3 in his declaration No. 6089/76 before the land ceiling authorities stating that the same were joint family lands and he was entitled to l/5th share therein. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were also entitled to 1/5th share each, according to the petitioner.

(3.) However, according to the petitioner, Sy.Nos. 404, 414 and 417 were inadvertently not included in the schedule B properties of the plaint. Further, according to the petitioner, the 1st respondent with the help of respondent No. 6 started construction over the lands purchased under the agreement of sale dated 15-1-1975 and when the petitioner objected to the same, the respondents 1 and 6 informed him that they were raising construction in Sy. No. 414 which was not the subject matter of the suit. According to the petitioner, he realised on going through the plaint B schedule properties that the said the said survey Nos. 404,414 and 417 were not included in plaint B schedule properties. According to him, this was inadvertently not done. The lands were in joint possession and enjoyment and that he was entitled to a share in it. The plaint was, therefore, required to be amended for the purpose of including these survey numbers in the plaint B schedule.