ORDER : 1. This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 08.12.2021, dismissing I.A.No. 1089 of 2021 in O.S.No. 82 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, filed by defendants 1 to 4 under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC and Section 151 CPC to frame the following additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without prayer for relief of declaration? 2. Whether the plaintiff suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without partition of the landed property in suit Sy.No. 33/8 in between co-owners? 3. Whether the registered sale deed dated 07-03-2015 stands in the name of plaintiff has been created by K. Balakrishna Reddy who is the father of the plaintiff herein? 4. Whether the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs as pleaded by the plaintiff and their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property? 5. Whether the revenue officials issued pattadar pass book and title deed for the suit property in favour of K. Balakrishna Reddy in the year 1995 under Katha No. 115 as pleaded by the plaintiff? 6. Whether the suit survey number subsequently inserted in Pattadar Pass Book and Title deed stands in the name of plaintiff’s father K. Balakrishna Reddy under Katha No. 115 and created the revenue records as pleaded by the defendants? 7. Whether the plaintiffs suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 8. Whether the suit property is cultivable land or not? 9. Whether there is a cause of action to file the suit as pleaded by the plaintiff? 2. Heard Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 82 of 2015 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., from in anyway entering into or interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of Ac.0.32 cents of dry land in Sy.No. 33/8F situated in Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 82 of 2015 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., from in anyway entering into or interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of Ac.0.32 cents of dry land in Sy.No. 33/8F situated in Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. The case of the plaintiff is briefly as follows: The plaint schedule mentioned property is originally the ancestral property of the family of one Kayam Balakrishna Reddy S/o Venkatarama Reddy of Kayam village, having got purchased the same by Kayam Krishna Reddy, grandfather of K. Balakrishna Reddy and others under a registered sale deed, dated 20.07.1917. Since then, the family of Kayam Balakrishna Reddy has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. After the demise of grandfather (Krishna Reddy) and father (Venkatarami Reddy) of Balakrishna Reddy, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property without any interruption whatsoever and in the year 1995, pattadar passbook and title deed was issued under khata No. 115 in favour of Kayam Balakrishna Reddy. The said Kayam Balakrishna Reddy being absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned property sold away the same in favour of the plaintiff herein under a registered sale deed, dated 07.03.2015, vide document No. 911 of 2015 for a valid consideration duly delivering possession of the same to him and since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption whatsoever. While the things stood thus, the defendants having developed eyesore over the plaint schedule property, demanded the plaintiff to sell away the plaint schedule mentioned property for which the plaintiff refused. The defendants having bore grudge, without any manner of right, title and possession came over the plaint schedule property and tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment with a view to dispossess him from the schedule property. The plaintiff thwarted the illegal acts of the defendants. They left the plaint schedule property proclaiming that they would come again and take away the plaint schedule property. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff filed the present suit. 5. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written 1st statement (of defendant) which was adopted by the other defendants. The plaintiff thwarted the illegal acts of the defendants. They left the plaint schedule property proclaiming that they would come again and take away the plaint schedule property. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff filed the present suit. 5. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written 1st statement (of defendant) which was adopted by the other defendants. The contents of the written statement, in brief, are as follows: The defendants submit that Kayam Krishna Reddy and Kayam Narayana Reddy were brothers. The said Kayam Krishna Reddy has a son, by name, Kayam Venkatarama Reddy. The said Kayam Venkatarama Reddy has four sons, namely, i) Kayam Balakrishna Reddy (father of the plaintiff); ii) Kayam Madava Reddy; iii) Kayam Vasudeva Reddy; and iv) Kayam Padmanabha Reddy. The said Kayam Narayana Reddy has two sons, namely, Kayam Mannar Reddy and Kayam Ramachandra Reddy. Kayam Mannar Reddy has a son, Kayam Narayana Reddy. The four sons, divided their joint family properties under a registered partition deed, dated 08.02.1984. Subsequently, there were disputes between the sons of Kayam Venkatarama Reddy. The elder son of Venkatrama Reddy, namely, Balakrishna Reddy (father of plaintiff) filed a suit in O.S.No. 191 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, against his three brothers seeking permanent injunction for his share of properties. The said suit was disposed of on 09.08.2001. The plaintiff, his father, Balakrishna Reddy, and his brother, Ravi Reddy, divided their family properties under registered partition deed, dated 07.12.2007. After demise of Kayam Ravi Reddy (brother of plaintiff), his wife and daughter filed a suit in O.S.No. 92 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, against the plaintiff herein, Balakrishna Reddy and others, which is pending. The total extent of land in Sy.No. 33/8 is Ac.0.77 cents. The plaintiff, his father Balakrishna Reddy, his grandfather Venkatarama Reddy and his forefathers have neither title nor possession over the land in Sy.No. 33/8 of Kayam village. Balakrishna Reddy has colluded with the revenue officials and inserted the suit Sy.No. 33/8 under Khata No. 115 in his pattadar pass book and title deed and basing on the wrong entries made in the revenue records, Balakrishna Reddy created nominal sale deed, dated 07.03.2015, in favour of the plaintiff who is his son and file the suit for wrongful gain. As per the plaint, the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff, and therefore, the legal heirs of Kayam Venkatarama Reddy, legal heirs of Kayam Ramachandra Reddy and Kayam Narayana Reddy S/o Mannar Reddy have got share in the suit property and they are also necessary parties and hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is incorrect. The plaint schedule property particulars are totally incorrect. The documents filed by the plaintiff are irrelevant and they are created for the purpose of the suit. The suit is not maintainable without the prayer for declaration. The suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died. The plaint schedule property particulars are totally incorrect. The documents filed by the plaintiff are irrelevant and they are created for the purpose of the suit. The suit is not maintainable without the prayer for declaration. The suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died. Thereafter, defendants 2 to 4 filed I.A.No. 1089 of 2021, that they filed the written statement contending that the schedule property is not the ancestral property of K. Balakrishna Reddy, but it is the ancestral property of the 1st defendant and further that K. Balakrishna Reddy has three brothers and his junior paternal uncles partitioned their entire joint family properties under a registered partition deed, dated 08.02.1984, and subsequently, K. Balakrishna Reddy and his three brothers partitioned their properties under partition list in the year 1993, and thereafter, basing on the said partition list, K. Balakrishna Reddy filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of his share of properties against his brothers vide O.S.No. 191 of 1996 on the file of the same Court and the said suit was disposed of on 09.08.2001 and later, K. Balakrishna Reddy and his son, late Ravi Reddy, and the plaintiff herein partitioned their entire family properties under registered partition deed, dated 07.12.2007; further that after the demise of Ravi Reddy, his wife and daughter filed a suit in O.S.No. 92 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, for partition and the said suit was disposed of on 23.03.2008; but the suit schedule property was not shown in the registered partition deed, dated 07.12.2007, or in O.S.No. 191 of 1996 or in O.S.No. 92 of 2009; further denied that the revenue authorities of Vadamalapet Mandal had never issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of K. Balakrishna Reddy in the year 1995 under Khata No. 115 of Kayam village and contended that since K. Balakrishna Reddy worked in revenue office, he in collusion with the other officials, inserted the suit property under khata No. 115, created and fabricated the entire revenue records and basing on the created and fabricated revenue entries, K. Balakrishna Reddy created nominal sale deed, dated 07.03.2015, in favour of his son who is the plaintiff herein. Therefore, the defendants contended that the suit schedule property is not the ancestral property of K. Balakrishna Reddy and that he was neither pattedar nor enjoyer of the land in Sy.No. 33/8 of Kayam village under old Khata No. 332 and further that the land in Sy.No. 33/8 is one component block and is not sub-divided. The defendants further pleaded that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. In view of the above pointed out pleadings taken by the defendants in their written statement, they proposed additional issues to be framed. 8. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter resisting the petition denying the averments made in the affidavit annexed to the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition stating that the Court already framed correct and apt issues after perusal of the pleadings on both sides and there is no need to frame any additional issue and further stating that this petition is only to protract the proceedings unnecessarily and to harass the respondent/plaintiff. 9. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that it has already framed issues as to (1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property as pleaded? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? and (3) To what relief?, and that these issues are sufficient and whereas the proposed additional issues are beyond the scope of the suit which is filed only for grant of permanent injunction. 10. Having been aggrieved by the said order, this revision is filed. In spite of service of notice on the respondent/plaintiff, no appearance has been made. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners 2 to 4 (since 1st petitioner died) submitted that the defendants have taken a categorical plea denying the title and also claiming that a mere suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for declaration of title, however, there is no issue framed as to title or as to maintainability of the suit for want of such prayer. He further submitted that the issues proposed are in respect of the disputed facts as well and are necessary to completely decide the suit and therefore, he pleaded to allow the petition. 12. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer Order XIV Rules 1 & 5 CPC which reads as under: “1. He further submitted that the issues proposed are in respect of the disputed facts as well and are necessary to completely decide the suit and therefore, he pleaded to allow the petition. 12. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer Order XIV Rules 1 & 5 CPC which reads as under: “1. Framing of issues: (1) Issue arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact. (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. 5. Power to amend and strike out issues: (1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.” 13. As can be seen from the pleadings in the written statement, at para No. 15, there is a specific stand taken by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable without the prayer for declaration and moreover, as noted above, they also disputed the title of the plaintiff and also the title of his father. As can be seen from the pleadings in the written statement, at para No. 15, there is a specific stand taken by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable without the prayer for declaration and moreover, as noted above, they also disputed the title of the plaintiff and also the title of his father. Though the question of title in a suit for perpetual injunction is incidentally gone in to and sometimes, in view of the defence taken, it may also be necessary to seek the relief of declaration of title also, but it cannot be said that the issue on the maintainability of the suit for not seeking the prayer for declaration is unnecessary, rather it is necessary to frame such issue and decide. As such, the proposed issue no. 1 is necessary. 14. Nextly, coming to the second proposed issue, it presupposes another issue of intricate dispute of title starting from the nature of the suit schedule property in the hands of K. Balakrishna Reddy. Therefore, the 4th proposed issue deals with such dispute. The 4th proposed issue in its form proposed may not suit and the same needs to be restructured as to “whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property of K. Balakrishna Reddy or not? And, if so, Whether K. Balakrishna Reddy has exclusive right over the same to sell the property?” 15. Nextly, the proposed issue No. 3 also needs to be restructured as to “whether the registered sale deed, dated 07.03.2015, executed in favour of the plaintiff by K. Balakrishna Reddy is genuine and valid.” 16. Thereafter, if the property is proved to be still un-partitioned, then it may give rise to a question “whether a suit for perpetual injunction would lie against the co-owners.” In that view of the matter, the proposed issue No. 2 must be restructured as to “whether the relief of perpetual injunction is maintainable against the co-owners.” 17. Since an issue on fact can also be framed, proposed issues 5 & 6 can be restructured as to “whether the pattadar passbook and title deed are created and fabricated as pleaded by the defendants.” 18. Since an issue on fact can also be framed, proposed issues 5 & 6 can be restructured as to “whether the pattadar passbook and title deed are created and fabricated as pleaded by the defendants.” 18. Insofar as the 7th proposed issue is concerned, in view of the pleadings in the written statement at para No. 14 that the legal heirs of Kayam Venkatarama Reddy and legal heirs of Kayam Ramchandra Reddy and Kayam Narayana Reddy S/o Mannar Reddy have share in the suit schedule property, and therefore, they are also necessary parties and in their absence, the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, it is necessary to frame an issue in this regard and the proposed issue No. 7 must be restructured as to “whether the legal heirs of Kayam Venkatarama Reddy and legal heirs of Kayam Ramchandra Reddy and Kayam Narayana Reddy S/o Mannar Reddy have share in the suit schedule property? And if so, whether they are necessary parties to the suit? And if so, whether the suit is bad for their non-joinder?” 19. Insofar as the proposed 8th issue is concerned, since there is no semblance of any plea taken in this regard in the written statement, it is not necessary to be framed. The proposed issue No. 9 also need not be specifically framed as cause of action is a bundle of facts and the material disputes are covered by the above issues and the issue proposed is broad and vague or in other words, not specific and clear. 20. Thus, without examining the necessity of framing the proposed additional issues, the trial Court has dismissed the petition and failed to exercise necessary jurisdiction vested in it for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter in issue before it. Since the issues proposed at Sl.Nos.1 to 7 are necessary, but in a restructured manner and as the trial Court failed to exercise its discretion to frame proposed additional issues in view of the pleas taken, the order impugned in the revision needs interference and is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 08.12.2021, passed in I.A.No. 1089 of 2021 in O.S.No. 82 of 2015 and allowing the said application in I.A.No. 1089 of 2021 with a direction to the trial Court to frame the following additional issues: 1. 21. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 08.12.2021, passed in I.A.No. 1089 of 2021 in O.S.No. 82 of 2015 and allowing the said application in I.A.No. 1089 of 2021 with a direction to the trial Court to frame the following additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without prayer for relief of declaration? 2. Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property of K. Balakrishna Reddy or not? And, if so, Whether K.Balakrishna Reddy has exclusive right over the same to sell the property? 3. Whether the registered sale deed, dated 07.03.2015, executed in favour of the plaintiff by K. Balakrishna Reddy is genuine and valid? 4. Whether the pattadar passbook and title deed are created and fabricated as pleaded by the defendants? 5. Whether the legal heirs of Kayam Venkatrama Reddy and legal heirs of Kayam Ramchandra Reddy and Kayam Narayana Reddy S/o Mannar Reddy have share in the suit schedule property and if so whether they are necessary parties to the suit and if so, whether the suit is bad for their non-joinder. 6. Whether the relief of perpetual injunction is maintainable against the co-owners? 22. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.