Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 40 (TS)

Ethadi Rajesher Reddy v. Pulugu Venkatesh

2026-01-07

RENUKA YARA

body2026
ORDER : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Since the issue involved in both the revisions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Aggrieved by the docket orders dated 18.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.248 of 2017 in O.S.No.115 of 2023 (old O.S.No.12 of 2014) and I.A.No.251 of 2017 in O.S.No.114 of 2023 (old O.S.No.10 of 2014) by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandimyadaram, both the revisions have been preferred by the petitioners-defendant Nos.11,12 and 14. 3. Heard Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendant Nos.11, 12 and 14 and Sri G.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent-plaintiff. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in C.R.P.No.4230 of 2024 are discussed hereunder. 5. The 1 st respondent-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.115 of 2023 (old O.S.No.12 of 2014) seeking perpetual injunction with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of Acs.0-34 guntas, out of total extent of Ac.13-24 Guntas in Sy.No.113, situated at Erraguntapalli Village under Bommareddypalli revenue Village of Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar District bounded by East: Land of Shatrajula Pochmallu and others; West: Land of Adepu Buchaiah and others; North: Land of Kotha Mohan and others and South: Land of Odnala Bhumaiah and others. Upon receiving summons in the suit, the revision petitioners herein have filed written statements disputing the existence of the suit schedule property on the ground that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are not correct. 6. It is the specific case of the revision petitioners that the vendors of the plaintiff did not have ownership and possession over single gunta of land in Survey No.113, which had total extent of Ac.13-24 guntas. A copy of the written statement produced before this Court shows that there are pleadings about non- existence of the plaint schedule land. As per the plaint schedule, the vendor of the 1st respondent is not owner of single gunta of land in Survey No.113 when he executed registered sale deed vide document No.3303 of 2011, dated 24.11.2011 in favour of the 1 st respondent. Relevant pleadings are extracted hereunder: “Whatever the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed obtained by the plaintiff and another Kotha Mohan are totally not identifiable and there were no boundaries are in existence for the land of Ac.1-28 gts Involved in the registered sale deed. Relevant pleadings are extracted hereunder: “Whatever the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed obtained by the plaintiff and another Kotha Mohan are totally not identifiable and there were no boundaries are in existence for the land of Ac.1-28 gts Involved in the registered sale deed. More over the so called vender by name Baddam Raji Reddy had no single gunta of land out of the Suit Sy.No. 113 to sell land to the plaintiff and another person by name Kotha Mohan. Originally the total extant of Sy.No.113 is Ac.13-24 guntas. Out of Ac.13-24 guntas of land, the father of plaintiff’s Vendor by name B. Kotaiah and his brother Venkat Reddy and his Sister Katnapalli Rajamma are having three equal shares out of above said land. In turn Akarapu Raji Reddy sold an extant of Ac.01-15 gts to One Devi Ramaiah, an extent of Ac.1-15 gts to one Devi Pochaiah, and Ac.1-15 gts to Devi Lachaiah and one Bore Lingaiah purchased an extant of Ac.0-16 gts. Out of the share land of Katnapalli Rajamma, she sold Ac.1-05 gts of land to one Medi Pochaiah and Medi Rajaiah under simple sale deed long back and it was validated under ROR Act by settling their respective extents. Further, Katnapalli Rajamma has given Ac.1-10 gts of land to one Kallem Thirupathi Reddy, who is the own son-in-law of Katnapalli Rajamma, in turn Kallem Thirupathi Reddy sold the above said land to defendant Nos.11 and 12 by name Ithadi Rajeshwer Reddy and Bhoom Reddy through the registered sale deed on 05.05.2012 vide its document No.1386/2012 jointly. Further, defendant No. 2 purchased 0.02 ¼ gts of land, out of the suit Sy.No.113 from one Nalla Rajamani under simple sale deed who purchased the land from one Goli Kistaiah who purchased the same from one Badda m Kotaiah, father of the vendor of the plaintiff. In the said land, defendant No. 2 constructed a House vide its H.No.1-37 and residing therein. Defendant No.3 purchased an extent of Ac.0- 04 gts of land out of the suit Sy.No.113 from one Goli Kistaiah @ Krishna Murthy who purchased the same from Baddam Kotaiah on 01/02/2003 under simple sale deed. Defendant No.4 had no single gunta of land out of the suit Sy.No.113, defendant No. 5 is also had no single gunta of land out of the suit Sy.No.114. Defendant No.4 had no single gunta of land out of the suit Sy.No.113, defendant No. 5 is also had no single gunta of land out of the suit Sy.No.114. But the plaintiff made defendant No.5 as party to the suit by keeping into view that defendant No.5 is the brother’s son of the vendor of the plaintiff. It was clearly mentioned as Ac.1-15 gts was sold to defendant No. 10 by name Devi Lachaiah. The entire Ac.1-15 gts of purchased land is in physical possession and enjoyment of defendant No.10 only. Defendant No. 13 is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-22 ½ gts of land out of the suit Sy.No. and the brother of defendant No.13 is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-22 ½ gts of land out of the Suit Sy.No. 113. Against the possession and enjoyment of not only the defendants is the matter but also some third persons by seeing the name of vendor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff created false documents and filed false Suit. Whatever the boundaries shown in the suit schedule are not so correct and no single gunta of land is available within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule. The fact may be true Baddam Kotaiah may died by leaving the vendor of the plaintiff as his Legal-heir and he did not left any single gunta of land to his son to sell the same to the plaintiff and whatever the title and pass book and “13 B & C" certificates are filed by the plaintiff are totally formal documents and the revenue people have prepared the said document without proper enquiry. Plaintiff is not at all in possession over the suit schedule property, the question of interference by the defendants does not arise.” 7. Upon filing the written statement in the year 2014, after lapse of three years, the 1 st respondent- plaintiff has filed I.A.No.248 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint schedule. 8. It is pertinent to note that the cause for amendment as stated in the affidavit filed is as follows: “I submit that the above respondents/defendants have specifically pleaded that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are wrong; as such I along with my co-vendor have approached our common vendor, and requested to get the land measured again to determine the boundaries. That our vendor has considered and agreed to get the land measured and to fix up the boundaries by the competent authority. In pursuance of the application made by our vendor, the Mandal Surveyor, Dharmaram has inspected the suit survey number and demarcated the same by fixing up the boundaries in the presence of the witnesses. I submit that, the Mandal Surveyor, Dharmaram also prepared a Panchanama to that effect. I have brought the said attested copy of the Panchanama, dated 29.09.2016 into the Court record and filed the same. 9. According to the above pleadings in the affidavit, after perusing the written statement filed by the revision petitioners, the 1st respondent along with co- vendee, has approached the common vendor and sought measurement of the land to determine the boundaries. The common vendor has considered the same, measured the land and fixed the boundaries.The Mandal Surveyor has inspected the suit schedule land and demarcated the same by fixing the boundaries in the presence of the witnesses and panchanama was executed to the said effect. After conducting Panchanama, the 1 st respondent and his co-vendee have noticed that the boundaries in the registered sale deed are mentioned wrongly and therefore, sought for amendment of the boundaries and filed the I.A under revision. 10. In spite of opposition by the revision petitioners by filing counter stating that the amendment is likely to cause prejudice to them as it takes away valid defence about non-existence of the suit schedule property on ground; that by perusing the pleadings in the written statement, survey was conducted, and a rectification deed was got executed in the year 2016 and then, amendment petition was filed in the year 2017, the trial Court has allowed I.A.No.248 of 2017 vide order dated 18.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the petitioners- defendant Nos.11, 12 and 14. 11. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that under original document there is a joint purchase by the 1 st respondent-plaintiff along with other vendee and there is no partition between them and no division drawn under rectification deed and the same was permitted by the learned trial Court without noticing the pros and cons. It is emphasized that the amendment is based on rectification deed executed in the year 2016, which was not present at the time of presentation of the plaint. It is emphasized that the amendment is based on rectification deed executed in the year 2016, which was not present at the time of presentation of the plaint. Further, in a suit for perpetual injunction, the Court may take into consideration the state of affairs as they existed on the date of filing of the suit but not later developments and therefore, pleaded that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal. The reasons cited for allowing the amendment i.e., to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and proper adjudication of suit is unjust and on such reasoning, the plaint schedule was altered in a amendment, which is prejudicial to the interest of the revision petitioners. 12. In spite of the objections raised in the written statement, the amendment was permitted and thereby permission was accorded to the 1 st respondent to setup a new case altogether to claim interest on the property which was not available to them and as such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 13. During arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Revanna vs. Anjanamma(Dead) by legal representatives and others , (2019) 4 SCC 332 , wherein it was held as follows:- “ Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.” 14. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Basavaraj vs. Indira and others , (2024) 3 SCC 705 wherein it was held as under: “In response, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that it was merely an oversight mistake which occurred at the time of filing of the suit and at the subsequent stage for which the amendment was prayed for by respondents 1 and 2. It is not a case where the pleadings to that effect are not available on record. Respondents 1 and 2 had fairly pleaded about the earlier compromise decree. Inadvertently, the prayer for declaration thereof as null and void could not be made. The Court fee also could not be deposited. No fresh evidence is to be led. The case is at the arguments stage. The same can be argued with mere re-framing of the issues. It will avoid multiplicity of litigation and ultimately complete justice will be done amongst the parties, who are merely praying for partition of the ancestral property. The other side can be compensated with costs, as was even done by the High Court. No prejudice as such will be caused to the appellant. Substantial justice will be done to the parties. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy and Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd." 15. No prejudice as such will be caused to the appellant. Substantial justice will be done to the parties. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy and Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd." 15. Lastly, reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another , (2022)16 SCC 1 wherein, certain guidelines have been issued to be followed while permitting amendments to the pleadings, more particularly, learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paras 71.3.2 (a) & (b), 71.4.2, 71.4.3 and 71.4.4, which reads as follows:- “ 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.” 16. On the basis of the above citations, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that he is not on the point of commencement of trial but on the point of prejudice that is likely to be caused to the petitioners-defendant Nos.11, 12 and 14, who have specifically taken up the plea about non-existence of the suit schedule property as per the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. 17. Learned counsel had further contended that once the boundaries are changed, the 1 st respondent- plaintiff has given up the original case seeking perpetual injunction with respect to land as per the boundaries in the original plaint schedule and is seeking perpetual injunction with respect to some other land by producing a Mandal Surveyor report and rectification deed in support of his case, and that such an amendment cannot be permitted. 18. 18. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India (3 supra), wherein it was held that amendment may not be permitted, when such an amendment causes injustice to the other side or such an amendment which is a clear admission made by a party which confers a right on the other side is taken away, such an amendment which changes the nature of the suit and by such an amendment, the other side losses a valid defence. 19. In response, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Boppidi Ailaiah vs. S. Venkatanarasaiah and others , 2006(2) ALD 772 , wherein, it is held as follows:- “It is no doubt true that the suit is of the year 1997 and this application had been thought of in 2002. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the trial had not yet commenced. In view of the fact that the boundaries had been specified in the plaint schedule and in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, this Court is of the considered opinion that the approach adopted by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the merits and demerits which are to be decided at the stage of trial need not be gone into at the time of considering an application for amendment of pleading. It is made clear that the merits and demerits of the proposed amendment sought to be introduced may have to be gone into at the stage of final disposal of the suit.” 20. Further, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Smt.P.Shailaja Kumari @ Shaila Kumari v. Vasantha Malavika and another , 2019(4)ALT 191 (TS) wherein it was held as under: “Moreover, the purpose of permitting amendment of pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This fundamental principle seems to have been lost sight off by the Court below in considering petitioner’s application for amendment.” 21. Learned counsel contended that amendment of pleading is permissible as per Order VI, Rule 17 CPC as trial in the suit has not yet commenced and it is necessary for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings in that context. Learned counsel contended that amendment of pleading is permissible as per Order VI, Rule 17 CPC as trial in the suit has not yet commenced and it is necessary for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings in that context. In the case of Boppidi Ailaiah (4 supra) when there was a discrepancy with respect to boundaries of the plaint schedule, the amendment was permitted to rectify the same. The one distinguishing factor with respect to the said case and the instant case is that the discrepancy in the boundaries was between the registered sale deed and the plaint schedule. In the said case, the plaint schedule was permitted to be amended to make it inconformity with the boundaries in the sale deed, whereas, in the instant case, the registered sale deed is of the year 2011 with wrong boundaries in schedule, therefore, a rectification deed was executed in the year 2016 and thereafter, amendment was sought to the plaint schedule. In the case of Shaila Kumari (5 supra), a suit for perpetual injunction was filed and after dismissal of the I.A filed seeking temporary injunction, the petition to amend the prayer and add certain paragraphs for the purpose of declaration of title and recovery of possession was permitted. The reason cited therein was that amendment is permitted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The amendment permitted in Shaila Kumari’s case (5 supra), is with respect to nature of suit i.e., a suit for perpetual injunction was permitted to be converted into a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to same schedule property without changing the boundaries. The judgment of Shaila Kumari (5 supra) is distinct from the present case. In the case of Shaila Kumari , amendment to boundaries was not sought, only there was admission about cloud on title and the plaintiff not being in possession and therefore, a prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession were permitted to be added by way of amendment without changing the boundaries i.e., though nature of relief sought has been permitted to be amended, the suit schedule property remained the same in Shaila Kumari’s case. In the instant case, the nature of relief sought is not to be changed. In the instant case, the nature of relief sought is not to be changed. What is sought to be changed is the boundaries i.e., the property as described in the plaint suit schedule at the time of filing the suit is not the same as the property as it would be after the amendment is permitted. Therefore, the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-plaintiff are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22. In the instant case, a suit is filed for relief of perpetual injunction, and the same is opposed by filing written statement taking a specific plea about non- existence of the suit schedule property as described in the plaint schedule and the vendor of the 1 st respondent not having right, title interest to execute any sale deed and not being in vacant possession. Once such a plea is taken in the written statement, permitting amendment to the pleadings to change the boundaries would cause prejudice and injustice to the revision petitioners. The amendment changes nature of the suit schedule property as described at the time of filing the suit and after amendment is permitted, more importantly, it would cause loss of the valid defence to the revision petitioner. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amendment ought not to have permitted and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 24. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated 18.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.248 of 2017 in O.S.No.115 of 2023 and I.A.No.251 of 2017 in O.S.No.114 of 2023 by the Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandimyadaram. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these petitions, shall stand closed.