Dismissed

Polavarapu Eshwar Rao, v. Shaik Shajadi

Telangana HC17 Nov 2011CRP/1968/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the trial court's dismissal of an amendment application vide which he sought to declare his late father's possession and construction activities on the suit property. The court held the delay was fatal and allowed only declaratory relief on specific facts, which is impermissible. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Polavarapu Eshwar Rao, Vs Shaik Shajadi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1968 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision petition. He moved I.A.No.284 of 2010 in O.S.No.74 of 2003, seeking amendment of the plaint. The following reliefs were sought for in the suit, originally:

¶5

a) to restrain the defendant and her men, supporters, and all those who claim through her from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, through PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.

¶6

b) to award costs of suit and

¶7

c) to grant any other relief or reliefs as the Honbl. Court feels deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶8

2. That relief portion is sought to be amended by adding a further relief in the following terms:

¶9

(aa) is to be added before para (a) and included in relief column. “To declare that plaintiff’s father-Palavarasu Rama Rao, had raised and constructed a rice mill and thatched house/hut/paka, upon suit property at Vemsaar (V) and paid taxes to concerned Authority, from 1982, having purchased under possessary agreement of sale on 0704-1955, and after demise of plaintiff’s father, - Rama Rao plaintiff succeeded as heir, upon suit property, till date by enjoying its possession.

¶10

3. The relief now sought for by way of amendment of the plaint is not a declaratory relief of title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, but he sought for a declaration that his late father has carried on rice mill business by constructing a structure in the form of a thatched house/house/paka over the suit schedule property. Such a declaratory relief is incapable of being granted by any Court and rightly the Court has dismissed the Interlocutory

¶11

Application. Further the written statement has been filed by the defendant in the suit long back disputing the averments and contents of the plaint. The plaintiff has not bothered to seek any amendment of the relief till the suit has become ripe for trial. Hence, such belated attempt to seek amendment of the plaint amounts to introducing a new element to the suit. That should not be allowed. Hence, I do not find any irregularity committed by the Court below in dismissing I.A.No.284 of 2010, for me to exercise revisional jurisdiction.

¶12

4. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶13

_______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶14

sp 17.11.2011

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶16

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1968 OF 2011

¶17

17^th November, 2011

¶18

Polavarapu Eshwar Rao, v. Shaik Shajadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polavarapu Eshwar Rao, v. Shaik Shajadi

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

M/s. Mbs Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri jaganmohan Rao

M.Mohan Krishna, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

M.C.H. Swamulu, E-404578, Apsrtc Driver Vs Sri Prasada Rao

K.Rama Mohana Rao, E-85341, Vs Sri Prasada Rao

V. Sivarama Krishna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Shaik Allabaksh Vs Jouladi Mangathai