JAVVADI CHINNA VENKATRAMAYYA Vs. BANDI VEERASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur, in O.S. No. 26 of 1922, dated the 20 February 1923.

(2.) The petitioners and counter-petitloner both claimed to be alienees from reversioners to the suit estate. The counter-petitipner filed with his plaint in O.S. No. 26 of 1922 a genealogy showing that Subbarayudu the grandfather of his alienors was son of Rajayya under whom the petitioners claim through another branch. A year and more after filing his plaint, the counter- petitioner put in an affidavit to the effect that Venkiah should be inserted between Rajayya and Subbarayudu. "The word was omitted by mistake." It was not a clerical error for the plaint merely copied the recital in plaintiff's document (judging, from the affidavit of petitioners). But the petitioners (who are also suing on the strength of their conveyance by other reversioners) had made it plain that the grandfather of plaintiff's alienors was not Rajayya but Venkayya. It was to avoid this difficulty and not owing to clerical error that plaintiff sought to amend his plaint. The Subordinate Judge who dealt with the petition for amendment in. I.A. No. 744 of 1922 correctly appreciated the point. "The relationship," he states "of each was definitely given in the plaint and in the written statements and because the defendants have produced some documents to show the connexion of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title to be not true, the plaintiff wants to have it altered. I think this cannot be allowed now."

(3.) (The case then proceeded and when the plaintiff attempted to prove the relationship Otherwise than stated in his plaint, the evidence was disallowed by a fresh Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff then applied in I.A. No. 227 of 1923 for review of the order refusing amendment ostensibly because his petition to amend had been obscure but, of course, really because his evidence had been ruled out. The new Subordinate, Judge examined the case and found, quite rightly, that his predecessor had disallowed the amendment on the ground that the plaintiff was only asking for it because, the documentary evidence adduced by the rival claimants showed that Subbarayudu's father was not Rajayya but Venkayya.