BH PRASADA REDDY Vs. BH BUTCHL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed questioning the orders of the Principal District Munsif, Gudivada dated 23-11-1995, by which I.A.No.1509 of 1995 in O.S.No.96 of 1986 filed for amendment of plaint was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner herein was added as second plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.96 of 1986 as legal representative of his deceased mother, who was the original sole plaintiff in the suit and who died during the pendency of the said suit. The suit was originally filed for the relief of declaration of title of the original sole plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the suit property, which is a house, from the defendant. It was contended in the suit that her father-in- law Ramireddy had executed a Will dated 4-11-1967 giving life interest in the suit property to his wife Subbamma and vested remainder rights to the original plaintiff, who is his daughter-in-law, that her father-in-law died on 7-12-1994 (sic. 1984) and his wife also died on 31-10-1985 and after their death, she took possession of the suit property as its owner, that she was subsequently dispossessed by the defendant, who is another son of Ramireddy and that the suit was therefore filed on the basis of the above said Will for declaration of title and recovery of possession. During the pendency of the said suit, the original sole plaintiff died and her son, who is the present petitioner,was brought on record as second plaintiff as legal representative of the deceased original plaintiff and he continued to prosecute the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the defendant filed A.S.No.2 of 1992 before the appellate Court, which allowed the said appeal and dismissed the suit, holding that the Will said to have been executed by late Ramireddy is not proved. The present petitioner thereupon filed Second Appeal No.490 of 1992 and the said appeal was allowed by this Court on 11-9-1995 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court directing it to frame an additional (issue) and dispose of the suit afresh according to law. After the suit was thus remanded to the trial Court, the petitioner herein who is the second plaintiff filed I.A.No.1509 of 1995 under Order 6 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint so as to permit him to take the alternative plea relating to his title, contending that Ramireddy who had executed the Will dated 4-11-1967 had also executed a gift deed dated 7-5-1969, making gift of the suit property to him, that he therefore, became owner of the suit property under the said gift deed and that he may, therefore, be permitted to amend the plaint accordingly to raise such an alternative plea relating to his title.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the petition holding that such amendment sought for by the petitioner cannot be allowed in view of his earlier contention regarding the said gift deed and also as he is added in the suit only as a legal representative of his deceased mother, who was the original plaintiff and as he is not personally impleaded as a party to the suit, so as to base his claim on the gift deed said to have been executed by his grandfather Ramireddy. Questioning such orders, the present revision petition is filed.