The petitioner claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having inherited the same from his ancestors, filed the suit for declaration, declaring the sada sale deed dated 20.09.1989 as null and void and not binding on him and consequently grant injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial also concluded. And at that point of time, the petitioner filed the present I.A. stating that his name was recorded in the record of rights vide proceedings dated 23.06.1994 and he was also issued pattedar pass books. That he came to know about the entry of the name of the respondent in the record of rights on 24.08.2004, when he obtained pahanies for the year 2002-03, and on enquiry, further enquiries, he came to know that the respondent got his name mutated in the revenue record on the basis of fabricated sale deed dated 20.09.1989. He further stated that as the name of the respondent was recorded in the revenue record, without issuing any notice to him, the entries made by the Tahsildar, mutating the name of the respondent, are not binding on him. Hence, he contended that amendment in the prayer portion E, to the effect “to direct the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, to restore the revenue entries prior to implementation of RoR proceedings bearing No. B/237/98”, is necessary, and accordingly prayed the Court to permit him to make such amendment in the prayer portion of the plaint, in the interest of justice.
