LAWS(TLNG)-2021-11-146

P. KASHINATH YADAV Vs. MANGILAL CHOUDARY

Decided On November 12, 2021
P. Kashinath Yadav Appellant
V/S
Mangilal Choudary Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dtd. 23/11/2019 in I.A.No.619 of 2021 in O.S.No.204 of 2018, wherein and whereby, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Sec. 151 CPC for framing additional issue.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner/defendant raised the dispute about the title of the respondent/plaintiff, it is the bounden duty of the Court to frame issue and the Court below should have framed an issue regarding title, but the Court below has not framed the issue. When the petitioner/defendant filed an application for framing an additional issue, the Court below without considering the issue in proper perspective dismissed the same. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in Jharkand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh [2018 ALT (Rev.) 218 (SC), Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs..00[AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033] and Venkata subbamma v. Praneshchari [2004) 3 ALT 513]. He also submits that the petitioner and the respondent are claiming the title through common vendor and both are claiming title basing on registered sale deeds, as such, the issue regarding title needs to be framed in the present suit.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the Court below found that the claim made by the petitioner/defendant is in respect of different property and his claim is different with that of the property of the respondent/plaintiff, as such, there is no dispute regarding title of the plaint schedule property. He also submits that after giving such finding, the Court below has dismissed the application. He also submits that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application since in the present case, the respondent/plaintiff is claiming rights in respect of the house property identified by house numbers with boundaries and it is not an open plot and the same area is distinguishable on facts.