K SURI Vs. RAMULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (at the admission stage)

(2.) PETITIONER is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents-defendants, claiming that he is in possession of the property and the respondents are trying to dispossess him. In the written statement filed by the respondents, they set up title to the suit property denying the title of the petitioner. When the suit is pending trial, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC tor amendment of the plaint introducing after the sentence that the plaintiff has got title, interest, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule land having got the same from his father" the words "and also from his sister-in-law the defendant No. 1, under a document dated March 13, 1984 and he has been in peaceful possession of the same". That application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the petitioner is estopped from raising this plea since he was aware of the document dated March 13, 1984 and the suit was filed in the year 1985. But that may not be a relevant ground to reject the application, as rightly contended by Sri Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner. But the question as argued by the learned Counsel for the defendants before the Court below is that when it is a suit for mere injunction the question of going into title is irrelevant and if the amendment is allowed, it changes the cause of auction and therefore it cannot be permitted. The stand taken by the defendants is well justified for the obvious reason that in a case where the suit is for mere injunction, it is open to the defendants to come forward with the plea that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and assert title or possession in themselves. In such circumstances, the only course open to the plaintiff if they assert title in them, is to seek for a declaration of title. Alternatively, it is open to the respondents to establish that as on the date of the suit, they are in possession, whatever may be lawful source of possession. In the latter case, the need to go into the question of title is redundant and it would be confined only to possession as on the date of the suit. If this amendment is allowed, in effect, it will be converting the suit into one of title without any such relief having been asked for Thereby it changes the cause of action on the basis of which the suit is originally jounded. Thus considered, I find that the refusal to grant permission for amendment of the plaint is not vitiated by any material irregularity or error of jurisdiction, warranting interference. The CRP is dissmissed.