KANTHAM NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. PURAN BUCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

(2.) These two revisions can be disposed of by a common order since theyarise out of the same suit. C.R.P.No. 4813 of 1997 is filed by the defendants questioning the order passed by the lower Court allowing an application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The other revision is filed by the plaintiff questioning a docket order dated 22-8-1997 holding that the memorandum of partition sought to be tendered by the plaintiff in evidence is not admissible.

(3.) The suit is filed for declaration of title and for possession of the plaintschedule property on the plea that the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff in an oral partition between him and his brothers and that the defendants trespassed into the same. However, in the plaint neither the date of the alleged oral partition nor the date of the alleged trespass by the defendants was mentioned and the relevant portions in the plaint were kept blank. The suit was filed in the year 1990. The trial commenced in 1996. The evidence on the plaintiff's side commenced on 27-8-1996 and it was closed on 27-12-1996 after examining five witnesses. The defendants' side was commenced on 24-1-1997 and it was closed on 10-3-1997 after examining four witnesses. Thereafter the arguments on the plaintiff's side were completed on 21-10-1997 and the arguments on the defendants' side were commenced on 28-10-1997, While the evidence on the plaintiff's side was being recorded, the plaintiff sought to tender in evidence an alleged memorandum of partition of the year 1968 purporting to record a past partition made orally. By the docket order dated 22-8-1997, the lower Court held that the alleged memorandum of partition is not admissible in evidence. It is against this order that the plaintiff has filed C.R.P. (SR) 2630 of 1998. Subsequently the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 2277 of 1997 seeking leave to amend the plaint by mentioning that the alleged oral partition took place much prior to the year 1968 and that the defendants trespassed into the suit property in the month of March, 1990. This application was filed on the allegation that the time of the alleged oral partition and the alleged trespass by the defendants was not originally mentioned in the plaint inadvertantly or by oversight or by mistake and blanks were left withoutbeing filled up in paras 3 and 14 of the plaint. It is further stated that the said mistake was not deliberate or intentional and the same was noticed only at the time of the arguments when the Counsel happened to go through the plaint.