Allowed

P Indranamma v. P Hari Prasad

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026CRP/939/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed civil revision petitions, setting aside the lower court's orders permitting amendment of plaints in a property suit. The amendment was disallowed as it introduced a new cause of action (Will execution) after the defense was crystallized, changing the suit's nature and causing irreparable prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Orders allowing amendments in I.A. Nos. 575, 576, and 577 of 2025 were set aside and the revision petitions were allowed. No costs.

P Indranamma Vs P Hari Prasad — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

Orders Reserved on : 30.06.202 6 Orders Pronounced on : 11.09.2026 Orders Uploaded on : 15.09.202 6

¶2

APHC010161562026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, T H E 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶7

C.R.P.Nos.938, 939 and 940 of 2026

¶8

C.R.P.No.940 of 2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

1.P.Indranamma, W/o.late P .Krishna Reddy, Aged about 75 years, Resi d ing at B.C.Colony, Ellamarajupalle Village and Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chitto o r District.

¶11

2.P.Rajendra Prasad, S/o.l a te P.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Cultivation, Residing at D.No.23-377/5, Santhinagar Colony, Kongareddipalle, Chittoor M andal and District.

¶12

3.P.Gopinatha Reddy, S/o. l ate P.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Cultivation, Residing at Ellamarajuapll e Village and Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chito o r District.

¶13

P.Ramesh Reddy, S/o.L a te P.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Cultivation, Residing at D.No.2-682, Ellamarajupalle Village and Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chitto o r District.

¶14

5.P.Mohan Reddy, S/o.late P.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Cultivation, Residing at D.No.23-377/5, Santhinagar Colony, Kongareddipalle, Chittoor M andal and District.

¶15

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS

¶16

¶17

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶18

AND

¶19

P.Hari Prasad, S/o.late P.Muneeswar Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, Residing at Ellamarajupalle Village and Post, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District – 517125.

¶20

...RESPONDENT / PLAINTIFF

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

Mr.O.Uday Kumar

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

Mr.K.Pridhvi Raju

¶25

¶26

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶27

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶28

The petitioners / defendants in O.S.No.92 of 2025 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor, aggrieved by the orders in I.A.Nos.575, 576 and 577 of 2025, filed the present Revision Petitions.

¶29

As the issue is inter-linked and parties are same, these Revisions are disposed of by this Common Order.

¶30

Respondent / Plaintiff filed the above said suit O.S.No.92 of 2025 seeking a decree and judgment against the petitioners / defendants by

¶31

(a) restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property;

¶32

(b) directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/towards the damage of the cattle shed situated in the eastern side of the plaint schedule property;

¶33

¶34

The case as set out by the respondent / plaintiff in Para Nos.3 and 4 of the plaint, which is relevant to the adjudication of the Revision Petitions reads thus:

¶35

“3. The plaintiff submits that he is the absolute and rightful owner of the plaint schedule mentioned property.

¶36

The plaintiff submits that originally the suit schedule property is belongs to Gramakantam which was acquired by father of the plaintiff by name

¶37

¶38

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶39

P.Muneeswar Reddy in or about 30 years ago and constructed RCC House in part of the schedule property and residing in the same along with his family members by obtaining Electricity service connection bearing No.5111213001454 and in the remaining eastern portion laid Cattle shed. The said P.Muneeswar Reddy was died on 28.11.2022 leaving behind him, his wife P.Nirmala and only son P.Hari Prasad (plaintiff herein) as his legal heirs and legal representatives and they succeeded the entire estate of deceased P.Muneeswar Reddy including the plaint schedule property. The death certificate of P.Muneeswar Reddy, House tax receipt (No.1) vide Assessment No.257 and electricity bills (No.2) with regard to suit property standing in the name of P.Muneeswar Reddy are herewith enclosed for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.”

¶40

The petitioners / defendants filed a detailed written statement, taking a specific stand, inter alia to the effect that partition of ancestral properties was effected on 13.10.2022, a Partition Deed was duly executed, allotting an extent of Ac.0.33 ½ cents, which included a house site to the share of respondent / plaintiff’s father one Mr.P.Muneeswar Reddy. Further, that on the date of partition, through an oral arrangement, the suit schedule property was specifically allotted to the 1^st defendant.

¶41

Respondent / plaintiff also moved an application seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, orders were reserved and when the main suit is posted for Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code proceedings, the respondent / plaintiff filed the above mentioned I.As., the details of which are as follows:

¶42

(i) I.A.No.575 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., r/w Rule 28

¶43

of Civil Rules of Practice, seeking permission to amend the plaint

¶44

¶45

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶46

by adding Para No.3 (a) after Para No.3 in the plaint, which is reproduced hereunder:

¶47

“3 (a) The plaintiff submits that originally the portion of the plaint schedule property was purchased out of self earning of P.Krishna Reddy, S/o.Munaswamy Reddy from his vendor by name P.Muni Reddy and his family members under a Registered Sale Deed dt.10.05.1989 vide Doc.No.2348/1989 for valid consideration and delivered possession on the same day. The remaining portion of the plaint schedule property was ancestral property of the above said P.Krishna Reddy and as such the said P.Krishna Reddy along with his wife P.Indranamma (D1), son by name P.Muneeswar Reddy and daughter-in-law by name P.Nirmala and plaintiff have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In the year 2007 the father of the plaintiff P.Krishna Reddy have constructed a RCC house in the plaint schedule property and obtained electricity service connection in his favour bearing Electricity service connection bearing No.5111213001454 and in the remaining eastern portion laid Cattle shed and residing along with plaintiff’s family members as stated above. The mother of the plaintiff being the daughter-in-law had look after all the needs and necessities of the said P.Krishna Reddy and thereby out of love and affection he has executed a unregistered Will dated 04.01.2023 in favour of his daughter-in-law by name P.Nirmala (plaintiff’s mother) by bequeathing the plaint schedule property which was his self acquired and ancestral property. The Original Un-Registered Will Deed is herewith enclosed for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.”

¶48

Further, after Para No.6 in the plaint, Para No.6 (a) which reads as follows:

¶49

“6 (a) The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff have also obtained loan from Hero Housing Finance by mortgaging the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.15,66,664/- on 06.03.2024 vide Doc.No.3564/2024 and the plaintiff also paying monthly EMI a sum of Rs.26,369/- and the said loan is still subsisting and to prove the same the plaintiff is herewith enclosing the Certified copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds along with Loan Account statement, Certificate for Principal and

¶50

¶51

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶52

interest for repayment, Repayment schedule statement, Provisional Certificate for Interest and Principal issued by Hero Housing Finance for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.”

¶53

(ii) I.A.No.576 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to amend petition in I.A.No.149 of 2025 filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., for temporary injunction.

¶54

(iii) I.A.No.577 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 14 (3) C.P.C., seeking permission to file documents stated in the petition including the unregistered Will dated 04.01.2023, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 06.03.2024 etc.

¶55

Insofar as the main I.A.No.575 of 2025 seeking amendment of plaint is concerned, the respondent / plaintiff averred that at the time of filing of the suit by mistake and oversight he has not informed his counsel about the execution of unregistered Will dated 04.01.2023 by his grandfather late P.Krishna Reddy in favour of his mother Smt.P.Niramala bequeathing his property i.e., plaint schedule property, that the said document was found recently while he was searching for some other papers in his house. Further due to lack of legal knowledge, he has not informed his counsel about obtaining loan from Hero Housing Finance by mortgaging plaint schedule property on 06.03.2024 and that the proposed amendment sought will not change natural characteristic of the suit and no loss will be caused to the defendants.

¶56

The petitioners / defendants resisted the said applications by filing detailed counter.

¶57

¶58

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶59

Learned Trial Judge while rejecting the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners / defendants opined that the said I.A., was filed because of changed circumstances in the suit schedule property, that by allowing the petition no prejudice will be caused to the defendants, whereas its refusal may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Further that plaintiff is not creating any new cause of action and for complete adjudication of the dispute, the proposed amendment is necessary. Expressing the same view, the learned Trial Court allowed I.A.No.576 of 2025 by a separate order dated 06.02.2026. As regards I.A.No.577 of 2025, it simply opined that a fair chance has to be given to the respondent / plaintiff to prove his case and allowed the petition to receive the documents, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submissions with reference to the various grounds raised in the respective Revision Petitions. Taking this Court through the specific averments in the original plaint, as also amendments as sought for by the respondent / plaintiff, he mainly contends that the proposed amendments alter the nature and character of the suit from a mere injunction suit to one involving declaration of title, that too based on inconsistent pleadings by introducing a new cause of action which in fact was within the knowledge of respondent / plaintiff even before the institution of the suit and amendment results in irreparable prejudice to the petitioners / defendants, who had filed detailed written statement taking a definite stand of family partition, possession etc. He contends that the learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating the conduct of respondent / plaintiff in seeking amendment

¶61

¶62

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶63

of pleadings after completion of enquiry in the application seeking injunction, more particularly when the defence of the petitioners / defendants had already been crystalized. He strenuously contends that by way of proposed amendment, the respondent / plaintiff seeks to introduce altogether a new case by resiling from the earlier pleadings as set out in the original plaint.

¶64

In essence, it is his contention that amended pleadings as allowed by the learned Trial Court virtually converts the suit from one for injunction into a suit involving declaration of title and complex questions of family partition, resulting in change of the entire nature of the suit. He also submits that the reason as stated in the I.A., seeking amendment of plaint to the effect that by mistake / oversight, execution of alleged unregistered Will dated 04.01.2023 and the Mortgage dated 06.03.2024 was not stated, was not sufficient to allow the amendment application, that too to the detriment of defence already setup by the petitioners / defendants in the written statement. Making the said submissions and further that the orders of the learned Trial Court in the other I.As., are bereft of reasons, let alone valid reasons, learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petitions by setting aside the orders under revision.

¶65

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff vehemently refuted and advanced arguments by referring to the counteraffidavits filed in the respective Revision Petitions. He supported the impugned orders of the learned Trial Court stating inter alia that pre-trial amendments have to be allowed liberally and therefore, there is no illegality much less irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders warranting

¶66

¶67

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶68

interference by this Court. He submits that the Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

¶69

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

¶70

On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is : Whether the impugned orders calls for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

¶71

Before answering the point for consideration, it is trite Law that when the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, such applications have to be considered liberally. It is equally well settled that when the amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the lis between the parties, the same shall be allowed. However, the Court while examining the application seeking amendment of plaint shall also ensure as to whether the amendment sought changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, and also determine whether such amendment results in / changes nature of the suit set up in the plaint and in such an event, reject amendment sought. Referring to a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Another¹ had broadly summed up the circumstances under which the application seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., may be allowed / disallowed.

¶72

1 (2022) 16 SCC 1

¶73

¶74

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶75

Coming to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the amendment of plaint was sought at pre-trial stage. However, the fact remains that the petitioners / defendants has taken a definite stand in their written statement as against the original plaint averments that the plaint schedule property was acquired by respondents / plaintiff’s father and after his death on 28.11.2022, the respondent / plaintiff and his mother succeeded the entire estate of deceased Muneeswar Reddy including the plaint schedule property as his legal representatives. After filing of the written statement, curiously the respondent / plaintiff sought amendment of plaint by introducing altogether a new case i.e., execution of alleged unregistered Will dated 04.01.2023 by his grandfather in favour of daughter-in-law i.e., mother of the respondent / plaintiff herein. It may be permissible for the plaintiff to take inconsistent pleas, but a new case which is altogether in deviation to the original plaint, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be permitted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision in Life Insurance Corporation case (referred supra). Apex Court, inter alia held that “where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in plaint, the amendment must be disallowed.”

¶76

17. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayana Swamy & Sons² ,

¶77

the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para No.61 opined as follows:

2 (2009) 10 SCC 84

NJSJ

CRP_938_2026 & batch

“61. The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts’ discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment.”

¶83

The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to number of earlier legal precedents and formulated factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments, which amongst others are important.

¶84

Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the

¶85

case?

¶86

Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide?

¶87

The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be

¶88

compensated adequately in terms of money;

¶89

In the light of the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amendment as sought for is not necessary for determination of the real question in controversy. Further, filing of amendment application after the arguments in the injunction application were heard and the matter is ‘reserved for orders’ lacks bona fides. That apart, as noted earlier, the petitioners / defendants have filed a written statement setting up of a specific case of partition in respect of the suit schedule property. In such an event, if the respondent / plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint and allowed to take a new plea by materially altering the nature of claim, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same would cause serious prejudice to the defendants / petitioners which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.

¶90

¶91

NJSJ CRP_938_2026 & batch

¶92

The learned Trial Court though was right in opining that application seeking amendment of pleadings has to be considered liberally, it, however, depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The decision on an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the learned Trial Court failed to undertake the same in the correct perspective, more particularly with reference to the above mentioned parameters set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus render the impugned order allowing the amendment application unsustainable.

¶93

In the aforementioned view of the matter, the order allowing the application seeking amendment of plaint warrants interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the order in I.A.No.575 of 2025 in O.S.No.92 of 2025 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor is set aside. For the reasons alike, the order in I.A.No.576 of 2025 in O.S.No.92 of 2025 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor is also set aside.

¶94

As regards order in I.A.No.577 of 2025 i.e., application seeking permission to file documents, which were referred to in the applications seeking amendment of plaint, in view of dismissal of the applications seeking amendment are dismissed, the said application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the order in I.A.No.577 of 2025 in O.S.No.92 of 2025 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor is set aside. Point is thus answered in favour of the Revision Petitioner.

NJSJ

CRP_938_2026 & batch