Allowed

Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi v. Smt. I. Sneha Latha and 2 others

Telangana HC13 Mar 2023CRP/1599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an amendment application. The court permitted the plaintiff to add a prayer for recovery of possession to her existing suit for declaration of title, finding no prejudice to respondents and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Interim application No. 206 of 2020 in O.S. No. 733 of 2016 allowed; petitioner permitted to amend plaint to include recovery of possession.

Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Smt. I. Sneha Latha and 2… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1599 OF 2022

¶7

Petition Under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 07-04-2022 in l.A.No. 206 of 2020 in O.S-No. 733 ot 2016 on the file of the Court of the lX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo K- Prabhakar Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o Plot No.38, Door No-5-552/2, Sivasai Nilayam, Abhudayanagar, chintalkunta' vanasthalipuram' R'R District-

¶10

...petitioner/petitioner/praintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. l. Sneha Latha, Wo l. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 41^years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o H.No. 17-7211, Sainagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad

¶13

Smt. A. Lakshmi, W/o Sri Lakshmi Pathy, Aged about 57^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.14-83, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad

¶14

Ramisetty Sambasiva Rao, S/o Raghavaiah, Aged about 63^years, Rl/o H.No.4-9-354, Plot No.62, RTC Colony, Hayathnagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad

¶15

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings in the main suit vide O.S.No-310 of 2022 (O.S.No.733/2016 transferred from the lX Addl- Senior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District) on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ivledchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri until disposal of the main Revision petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A.H.CHAKRAVARTHY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MARAM ANIL KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A VENUGOPAL

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU

¶24

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1599 OF 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Being aggrieved by the Order dated O7.O4.2O22 passed in I.A.No.206 of 2O2O in O.S.No.733 of 20 16 on the file of the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, by which the Court below dismissed the request of the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, the petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India

¶27

As could be seen from the record, it manifests that the petitioner herein has hled O.S.No.733 of 2016 for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. According to the plaint averments, she has purchased the property under a registered sale deed from defendant No.2 during the year 1998. During the pendency of the said

¶28

¶29

suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2O6 of 2O2O^.under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19O8 and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission to amend the plaint. While Iiling the application for the proposecl amendment annexed with the consequential amendment thereto. 3. The petitioner has filed her own afficiavit and has submitted that she has purchased the premises bearirrg plot No.10, admeasuring 2O2 Square yards in Survey No.57 under a registered sale deed dated 05.08.1998 lrom defendant No.2, who purchased under a registered sale deed dated 12.05.1997.^Th'e petitioner has claimcd that in pursuance of the sale deed referred above, she has been put in^possessionof the property. It seems that she has hled interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1^and 2^of C.P.C. for temporary injunction to restrain respondent No. I and hcr agents from interfering with her possession. The petition vide I.A.No.8l7 of 2016 filed

¶30

¶31

by the petitioner for ad-interim injunction^was disposed of by the Court below with a direction to both the parties to maintain Status-quo. On 06. L2.2O16^tl:,e petitioner lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar Police Station, with an allegation that respondent No.l criminally trespassed into^the property and removed the fencing which was erected around the suit property and tried to occupy^the property and basing thereon, a case was registered by the police against respondent No. 1 and others.^The petitioner further claimed that subsequent to the Status-quo order, during August, 2Ol9 when^she visited the property along with her son, she found respondent No. 1 trespassed into the^propertyand occupied the suit schedule premises.^{When she} questioned respondent No.1 about the illegal occupation, respondent No.1 ignored the^legitimate right of the petitioner and threatened her with^dire consequences. Therefore, the petitioner having claimed

¶32

¶33

that respondent No. 1 occupied the suit . schedule property and sought permission to amend the plaint to add further relief i.e., recovery ofpossession.

¶34

This petition t/as ooposed b1r the respondent on varl0us grounds. As per the counter filed by the respondent, it was contended that when the petitioner filed the suit she sought ior cieclaration of her right over the property and for a perpetual injunction but now she u/ant to amend the suit relief and introduce the ner.r, reliel which is not sustainable with the earlier relief. The respondent further pleaded that the petitioner was never in possession of the property, therefore , the question ol i-ecovery of possession cannot be granLed. Respondent No.1 also claimed that interlocutory application filed by the petitioner vide I.A.No.B 17 of 2016 was not allowed granting injunction since the Court below did not accept the contention of the petitioner about the possession over the property.

¶35

¶36

Therefore, the request^{of the petitioner cannot be} considered.

¶37

Learned Trial Judge^{having heard both the} parties came to a conclusion^{that in view of the Orders} passed in t.A.No.817^{of 2016whereunderthe parties} were directed to maintait^{Status-quoand sincethere} are rival claims between^{both the partiesregardingthe} possession over the^{property, the request ofthe} petitioner for recovery^{ofpossession cannot be granted'} The petitioner failed^{to establish before the Court} below that the^{proposed amendmentis necessaryfor} proper and effective adjudication^{and dismissed'}

¶38

This Civil Revision Petition^{has been hled on the} following grounds:

¶39

The Court below^{failed toexercise itslegal} jurisdiction and misdirected itself^{into the scope of} enquiry and came^{to an erroneousconclusion'The} Court below failed^{to appreciatethe provisions of Order} VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C.^{whereunderthe parties can raise}

¶40

¶41

available pleas. The proposed amendment cannot change the character or nature of the suit and it will not amend the prayer of the plaintiff since it is a ancillar5r to the relief of the declaration of title but the Court below by giving a wrong finding dismissecl the application as such it is sought to be set aside.

¶42

Heard both the pa-rties.

¶43

Now the points that would emerge for determination are:

¶44

l) Whether the petitioner herein can be permitted to amend the plaint to include the additional relief for recovery of possession ?

¶45

1. Whether the Court below committed an error in dismissing the applicaticn hled by the petitioner as such the impugned Order is liable to be set aside ?

¶46

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S-No-733

¶47

^f or^{oT]l a- t^^-} zv ia, iias cialrrred -1 . in the suit that she has got right, title and possession over the property having purchased the same under registered sale deed. It

¶48

¶49

seems that she has hled an interlocutory^{applicationto} obtain an ad-interim injunction in^{respect of suit} schedule property. It depicts^{from the recordthat the} said interlocutory application^{was disposed of by the} Court below with a direction to^{both the partiesto} maintain Status-quo. The Court^{below instead of giving} any finding as to possession^{of the property or status} of the property simply directed^{the parties to maintain} Status-quo. No linding about^{the possession either the} petitioner/plaintiff or the respondent/defendalt^has been arrived at while disposing^{the above referred} interlocutory application.^Now the^{petitioner claims} that during the subsistence^{of the said Order though} she remained away from the^{property,respondentNo'1} along with her supporters trespassed^{into the property} and occupied the same, thereby,^{the petitioner sought} permission to amend the plaint for^{additional relief i.e',} recovery of possession.

¶50

As rightly argued by the petitioner, the relief for recovery of possession is nothing but ancillaqr relief for declaration of title, if the request of the petitioner is not considered, she would be forced to {ile another suit for recovery of property based on the titie and it is nothing but multiplicity of the proceedings, even if the proposed amendment is aliow-ed, the resporrdents would have the right to file additional written statements, the issue would be decided on merits, after allowing the parties to adduce oral and documentar5r evidence as such no prejudice u,ould be caused to the respondents/defendants. On the other hand if the relief sought by the petitioner is not accepted r-he purpose of hling of the suit would be defeated, in view of her own petition that she lost the property, thereby, the Order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. The petitioner czrn be permitted to amencl the plaint. 11. Under the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a

¶51

¶52

consequence^{thereof, I.A.No.206 of 2O2Oin O'S'No'733} of 2016 is allowed,^{permitting the petitioner/plaintiffto} arnend the^{plaintas prayed for and to ca-rryout the} consequential amendments^therefor'

¶53

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, i[ any, shall}

¶54

stand closed.^{No cost s.}

¶55

Sd/- B. CHANDRA^PRAKASH ASSrsrANrREr*

/TTRUE CO^PY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lX^{AdditronalSenior Civil Judge, Ranga ReddyDiskictat L B'Nagar}

¶60

One CC to^{SRl. A.H CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶61

One CC^{to SRl.M. ANIL KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶62

One CC^{to SRI A. VENUGOPAL, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶63

Two CD^CoPies

¶64

kam

¶65

¶66

HIGH COURT DATED:13/0312023

¶67

-i .1 g- s'i;\ i
:<br>ORDER
o,j) 2 B APff 2B?3
CRP.No.1599 of 2022

¶68

THE CRP IS ALLOWED

¶69

b
2-<br>

Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi v. Smt. I. Sneha Latha and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi v. Smt. I. Sneha Latha and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanuri Nagasiromani Vs Kanuri Rajasekhar

M. Naga Shravya Vs Mekala Karthik Reddy

Vittal Shirisha Vs Vittal Lingesh Kumar

Mrs.Pundru Shailaja Vs Pundru Sudhaker

S. Indrakaladhar Shetty Vs S. Vijaya Lakshmamma

Samayam Swathi, Vs K. Mohan