In a civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the allowance of an amendment to add recovery of possession in a title suit due to adverse possession claims.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; the earlier order allowing amendment was confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P. (PD) No.122 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 18.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CRP. (PD) No.122 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.1094 of 2019
Makireddi Ramakrishna ... Petitioner
Vs.
Yalla Sathayabama ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.10.2018 passed in I.A.
No.66 of 2018 in O.S. No.31 of 2016 by the Hon'ble Sub Judge at Yanam by
allowing the Revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.Veeraraghavan
For Respondent : Mr. A.V.Ramalingam
***
O R D E R
This petition is filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.66 of 2018 in
O.S. No.31 of 2016.
1/6
C.R.P. (PD) No.122 of 2019
of petitioner / defendant, the defendant and his family members were in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under plot Nos.45 & 46, for
decades and enjoyed the same as the absolute owner and their enjoyment is open, hostile, in the eyes of general public and adverse to the rights of owner and therefore, his title is perfected by adverse possession. The specific case of http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6
C.R.P. (PD) No.122 of 2019
the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property and there is no specific mention in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition about the date of encroachment of the property. Hence the amendment petition ought not to have been allowed. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order of learned
Subordinate Judge, Yanam.
petitioner claims that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, there is no specific details in the written statement as to the nature of the house constructed. The claim that the vendor of the plaintiff promised to provide the house to the father of the defendant is not supported by any material. The respondent filed a suit for declaration of title. Admittedly, now the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Without the prayer for recovery of possession, the very filing of suit will be defeated. Therefore, he prays for sustaining the order learned Subordinate Judge, Yanam.
narration of facts, it is clear that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of
the suit property. Of course, there is contrary claim as to the manner in which
the petitioner is entitled for the possession and from when he came into http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6
C.R.P. (PD) No.122 of 2019
possession of the property. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, when the property is in possession of the petitioner, without the prayer for recovery of possession, the very filing of the suit will be defeated. Considering the rival claim of title with regard to possession, this Court is of the considered view that only if the proposed amendment is allowed, the real issue in controversy between the parties can be identified and resolved for rendering comprehensive and substantial justice to the parties. If the proposed amendment
is not allowed, the very filing of the suit will go waste.
with law.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes / No
18.08.2021
4/6
C.R.P. (PD) No.122 of 2019
Speaking order / Non speaking order bkn
Copy To:
The Sub Judge, Yanam
5/6
C.R.P. (PD) No.122 of 2019
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN. J.,
bkn
CRP. (PD) No.122 of 2019
18.08.2021
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the Single Judge’s order allowing amendment of plaint in a title and possession suit.
Whether allowing amendment for recovery of possession is necessary to resolve the controversy over title and adverse possession.
Makireddi Ramakrishna
Yalla Sathayabama
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
