Dismissed

Jagana Chinaramamurthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Mar 2010CRP/4926/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court's order dismissing an application to amend the plaint in a suit for title declaration and injunction, holding that the proposed amendment based on government occupancy rights was diametrically opposite to the original claim of private title, thereby altering the suit's nature impermissibly.

What did the court decide?

Disallowance of the application to amend the plaint; Civil Revision Petition dismissed; No order as to costs.

Jagana Chinaramamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4926 OF 2009

¶3

DATED: 05-03-2010

¶4

Between: Jagana Chinaramamurthy & 2 others.

¶5

..... PETITIONERS

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Vizianagaram District & 2 others.

¶8

.....RESPONDENTS

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This petition is directed against the order, dated 01-06-2009, in I.A.No.850 of 2008 in O.S.No.190 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, wherein the said application filed by the revision petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by adding paragraph (e) in the plaint, was dismissed.

¶11

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶12

3. Petitioners herein filed the suit for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and are in possession and enjoyment of the same and they have perfected their title also by adverse possession. They further pleaded that they have got rights of occupancy in the schedule land, having enjoyed the same for more than fifty years, and they are entitled for protection of the same. In the plaint, they based their claim only on their title to the property based on the registered title deeds and on the

¶13

premise that it was the private property purchased by them.

¶14

4. When the matter was coming up for trial, petitioners/plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint by adding paragraph (e) and proposing to incorporate paragraph (e) as follows:

¶15

“As per the revised assignment policy of the Government, the valid restrictions and wrong classifications are not imposed on the occupants as the transfer of occupation rights are acquired by successions or inheritance. The occupancy rights are applicable for the unoccupied land and transfer of acquired land which are heritable and transferable to occupant of the land. As schedule property acquired by plaintiffs succession or successionship. The requirement of sanction from collection does not cover occupancy rights or successional rights. The lands cannot be resumed merely basing upon the plaintiffs. It is the duty of the revenue authorities to give notice to persons whose possession of the schedule land is too. However the defendant authorities not precluded from proceeding for change of revenue records to mutate for names of the plaintiffs basing on the sale deed of the plaintiffs as an absolute owner and unperturbed possessors in respect of suit lands”.

¶16

5. Respondents filed a counter, opposing the petition mainly on the ground that the proposed amendment would completely alter the nature of the suit and also change the cause of action and under the guise of the proposed amendment the plaintiffs are trying to put

¶17

forward altogether a new claim based on different set of facts, which is impermissible. After hearing both sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge by the impugned order dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred the present revision.

¶18

6. It is not disputed that the suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction and in the plaint, as originally filed, the claim of the plaintiffs for declaration of their title is based on their alleged purchase of the property under registered sale deeds, dated 16-12-1941; 03-03-1955 and 21-09-1949 under which the plaintiffs’ forefathers purchased the land. Plaintiffs alleged that the respondents were trying to trespass into the suit property and hence they were constrained to file the suit to protect their possession and enjoyment. Respondents have been contending that the suit land belongs to Government, and the Government was proposing to utilize the same for public purpose and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest therein.

¶19

7. When the matter was coming up for trial, plaintiffs proposed to amend the plaint by raising a plea to the effect that by virtue of the policy of the Government, as enunciated in the G.O.Ms.No.162 Rev.(Assignment), dated 16-02-2008, petitioners are entitled to claim occupancy rights over the schedule land and consequently they are entitled for perfection of their possession and enjoyment. Thus it can be seen that the

¶20

proposed amendment, incorporating a new plea, is diametrically opposite to the original claim made in the plaint inasmuch as the plaintiffs have claimed absolute title over the suit property by virtue of the purchase of their predecessors on the premise that it is a private property whereas, in the proposed amendment they are pleading that it is a Government land assigned in favour of their forefathers and they are entitled for occupancy rights by virtue of possession and enjoyment. The trial Court has therefore rightly held that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to amend the plaint in a situation where the proposed amendment would entirely alter the nature and character of the suit and also change the cause of action and bring about a new case altogether, which is totally at variance with the original claim made in the plaint.

¶21

8. It is no doubt well settled that the amendment to the pleadings can be permitted liberally and at any stage of the proceedings. However when the proposed amendment is so vastly different from the original pleading in the plaint that it brings about a total change in the complexion of the suit itself and the plea raised by way of amendment is diametrically opposite to the original plea made in the plaint, such an amendment cannot be permitted. In the present case, the original plea in the plaint and the plea raised in the proposed amendment do not simply go together. If really the plaintiffs intend to base their claim on the proposed plea that it is a Government land and they have acquired occupancy rights and they

¶22

are entitled for grant of such occupancy rights, the proper course would be to approach the concerned authorities in that regard. The inconsistent pleas raised by the plaintiffs in the original plaint and the proposed amendment do not therefore go together and hence, the proposed amendment, if allowed would certainly bring about total change in the nature and complexion of the suit, which is impermissible. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for amendment of the plaint, as proposed. The impugned order, dismissing the said application, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction as the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

¶23

9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶25

05^th March, 2010 Tsy

Jagana Chinaramamurthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagana Chinaramamurthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mada Nageswararao, Vs Potta Bharathi

Mada Suryanarayana , Suresh, Vs Potta Simhadri Appala Narasimha Murthy

Thondavarapu Malleswararao Vs Chavithina Gangamma

Mahanti Marayya Vs The State of A.P.

Uppaluri Srinivasa Rao Vs State of A.P.

Sidda Muralimohan Rao Vs The State of A.P.