MOHAMMED JAHANGIR SAHEB Vs. MOHAMED DAWOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders in IA No. 1295 of 2017 in OS No. 480 of 2012, dtd. 6/4/2018 on the file of Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCS and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

(2.) In the said suit plaintiff and defendant No.1 are real brothers and defendant Nos. 2 to 12 are the sons and daughters of the elder brother of the plaintiff namely late Mohammed Kjaja Saheb. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaintiff by inserting Paragragh 8-A and 8-B in the plaint. In the affidavit it is stated that he is also deposing on behalf of plaintiffs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. He stated that his father late Moulvi Haji Mohammed Jehangir Saheb filed the suit for partition against the defendants 1 to 12 regarding the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No. 229, admeasuring Ac.8-10 gts situated at Gagan Pahad Village. Defendants 13 and 14 are not necessary parties as no relief is claimed against them. His father passed away on 4/8/2013 and after his death they were brought on record as L.Rs. The defendants in their written statement stated that plaintiffs executed registered release deed vide document No. 1951 of 1983 and released the suit schedule property in his favour and also delivered physical possession. D-1 filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. Before commencement of the trial defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property in the intervening night of 30th September/1/10/2017. As such he intended to bring on record and sought amendment and requested the court to permit the same. He filed the said application on 23/7/2017.

(3.) In a counter filed by the 1st defendant, he stated that the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and the interlocutory application is not maintainable. He stated that he has been in joint possession since 1977 and thereafter from 4/4/1083 by virtue of Registered Release Deed he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and property is vested with him and he is absolute and exclusive owner of the same. The suit is filed in the year 2012 but the petitioners are dragging the litigation and an additional issue was framed at the stage of commencing the trial. Though petitioner stated in the plaint that they are in joint possession but contrary to the same they prayed for recovery of possession and now their allegation in the affidavit that they have already prayed for recovery of possession in the plaint as delivery of possession is sought. It clearly shows that they are not in joint possession and to save the Court fee simply stated that they are in joint possession, mutually conflicting prayers cannot be sustained. Moreover, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants 2 to 4 are in possession, as such the question of dispossessing them on 1/10/2017 does not arise. They have not paid proper Court fee under Sec. 34 (1) of A.P. Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. As such the amendment sought for cannot be considered.