The High Court · 2025

16.Smt. Chandamma, W/o Saibanna Aged about 46 years, Rl/o Madwar Dist & Tq Yadgir Kamataka.

17.Smt Chandramma, W/o Mallappa Aged about 33 years, R/o Duppalli Village of Tq and Dist. Yadgir Kamataka.

18.Mallappa, S/o Narsappa Aged about 49 years, Ri/o [1.No.i64/C Madwar Village of Makthal Mandal Narayanpet Dist. ...PETl'tIONERS/ Plaintiffs AND

1. V. Srinivas, S/o Vakiti Laxmanna Aged about 4o years, C)rc- Agri R:/o Makthal Mandal Makthal Dist NaraYanPet

2. V. Srinivas, S/o Ashanna Aged about 37 years, Occ- Agri Rl/o Makthal Mandal Makthal Dist Narayanpet.

3. Miskin Srinivas Rao, S/o Narsing Rao Aged about 37 yeats, Rl/o Makthal Mandal Makthal Dist NaraYanPet.

4. M. Narsimha Reddy, S/o Chenna Reddy Aged abcut 45 y':ars, Occ- Govt Servant Rl/o Makthal Mandal Makthal Dist Narayanpet-

5. Saibanna @ Nadipi, S/o Chinna Balappa Aged aboutT5 y'ears, Occ- Agri Rl/o H.No.21-44-, Yadavnagar Makthal Town and Mandal, Dist Narayanpet. ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Interim Stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Narayanpet and may pass any such otner Order or Orders as this Honorable High Court may deem flt, proper ancl necessary in the Circumstances of the Case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KARNAi/| RAf,IESH Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI N PRAVEEN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: None apepared The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO cRP.NO.35 o oF 2025 JUDG tj!ENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

08.01.2025 in IA.No.331 of 2024 in OS.No.11 of 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet.

2. The contentions of the petitioners in IA.No.331 ot 2024 are that they filed suit for declaration to declare the suit document Nos.648/2012 and AOO/2O12 are not binding on them for claiming any right or possession and for restraining the respondents/defenda nts from interfering in their possession. Due to the interference of the responden ts/defenda nts, their title over the respective plots came under the cloud. so they needed to seek a declaration of title over the suit plots and consequentially to amend the plalnt by adding Paragraph Nos.9(a), 11(a) and also by adding prayer No.i(a) i.e., to declare the plaintiffs are the owners of respective suit schedule plots.

3. Respondents filed their counter and contended that the case is posted for cross-examination oF DW.4, instead of proceeding further they filed the present application to amend the plaint seeking declaratory relaef. Written statement is filed in the year 2O13 wherein the respondents denied the title oF the petitioners over the suit plots. 2lt0 BRMR,J cRP :160 2025 Application is filed after 11 years to amend the plaint ,rnd which is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act i.e.. within 3 years from the date of denial of the title. The amendment applicatior'r filed by the petitioners will change the nature of the original pleading s and prayed for dismissal.

4. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel on record has dismissed the application without costs.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that tt- e Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it and failed to see that the petitioners are illiterates and could not understarrd the legal intricacies invoiveci in the issue. The Trial Court ought :o have seen that the suit for declaration of certain documents, if any a mendment is prayed for seeking declaration of title that does not chan(Je the nature of the suit and the amendment seeking declaration of title will not prejudice the rights of respondents. Learned counsel fr-rrther submits that the Trial Court failed to consider th3t the procedural la,ws are hand maid of justice to sub-serve the substantial justice. Th€) limitation for declaration is 12 years but not 3 years and placed reliance on Pankaja and Another vs. Yellappa (Dead) by LR.s And Othersl, (2) Oruganti Ramulu and another Vs. G.shankaraiah and another2, frayed to set aside the order. 1 lzoo+; o scc <ts ' zoz3 (L) ALT 420 (TS) 3170 BRMR,J cRP 360 202-5

6.1. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners for amendment of pleadings as the same is filed during the cross- examination of DW.4, no interference is called for and placed reliance on Mallava and another Vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (since dead) by Legal Heirs3, prayed to dismiss the CRp.

6.2. Notice to respondent No.5 is served on 14.O2.2O25 and failed to represent the case.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, the only question falls for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from any illegality or irregularity?

8. Petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit sought for a declaration to declare the suit document Nos.64g12012 and BOO/ZOL2 are not binding on them for claiming any rights or possession and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. The suit schedule property consists of 18 Plots. It is to be noted here that the petitioners have filed suit against respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 and subsequently defendant No.5 is added as party to the proceedings. 3 AIR Online 2024 SC 883 = 2024 SCC Ontine SC 3846 4 fi BRMR,J cRP 360 2025

9. Respondent Nos.l to 4 are the defendants in the suit, they filed their written staternent on 08.07.2013,,vherein they specif icall'/ denied the title of the plaintiffs in Para No.6. Para Nos'6 and 7 of the written statement have to be read conjointly.

10. The Trial Court basing on the pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues on 27 '07.20171

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the bonafide purchasers of the suit sehedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration declaring the suit document Nos.648/2012 and 800/'2112 are not bind ing on the Plaintiffs?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual iniunction as prayed fo r? 4. To what relieP

11. Defendant No.5 is added as a party to the suit, he filed a separate written statement denying the plaint averments Respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 have also filed their- add tional "'rritten statement. The Trial court has framed the following aclditional issue on 20.03.20 2 3: whether document No.8OO/2012 is not binding the plaintiffs?

12. The proposed Amendments to be made to the plaint reads as under: sl L0 BRMR,J cRP,360_2025 After Paragraph No.9 of the plaint Paragraph No.9(a) is to be added as shown below: 9(a) The plaintiffs submits that, due to creation of suit documents dated 12.03.2012 NS 28.03.2012 and basing on which on 2t.OL.2Ol3 tried to interfere in to the possession of the Plaintiffs, so that, the title of the PlaintiFfs over the respective pulted in to cloud so that. the Plaintiffs are to be declared as owner of the respective suit schedule of plots. by declaring that, the Ptaintiffs are the owners of the respective suit schedule plots. After Paragraph No.11 of the plaint paragraph No.11(a) is to be added as noted below: Since because of fake suit documents bring into existence by the Detendants, the title of the suit of the Plaintiffs pulled in to cloud so that, the Plaintiffs are put to be declared as owner of the pla int schedule of property with respect of plots of the respective Plaintiffs therefore the plaintiffs paid the court fees. After Prayer No.i, Prayer No.i(a) is to be added as shown below: i(a) To declare that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the respective suit schedule plots as shown in the schedule of plots.

13. On reading of Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which is substituted by the Act 22 ot 2022 with effect from O1.O7.2OO2 which reads that all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions ifl BRMR,.J cRP_360_2025 controversy between the parties provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the tria! has been commenced. unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of Cue diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 1-4. The Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy and Sonsa, has laid down some barsic principles which the Court should keep in mind while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. Para 63 of the Judgment reads thus : "63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some ilasic principies emerge which ought to be ra ken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the applicat on for amendment: ( 1) whether the amendment sought is imperatr\re for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bon,l'ide or ma la fide; (3) (4) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; refusing amendment would in fact lead to injusirce or lead to multiple litigations; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitu tion,llly or fundamentally changes the nature and character oF the CASC; o i2nnot rn cr,-' oz 7/LO BRMR,J cRP 360 2025 (6) as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amendment claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application."

15. The trial in the suit is commenced, petitioners have led their evidence by examining PWs.1 and 2 and after closure of their evidence DWs.l, 2 and 3 were also examined and the affidavit of DW.4 was filed, when the matter was coming up for cross-exa m ination of DW.4. The petitioners came up with the present application on 18.09.2024. Amendment of pleadings can be permitted for the purpose of determining the real questlon in controversy between the parties but while making the application they have to show their due diligence that they could not have raised the matter before the commencement oF trial. The petitioner No.7 filed the affidavit for the amendment of pleadings in the Trial Court and stated that because of interference of the respondents/defenda nts their title was put under the cloud. Affidavit is silent with regard to the date/month of interference of the respondents/defendants nor they have shown any due diligence that they could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial and it is further contended that due to improper explanation of the subject matter counsel did not pray for declaratory relief. It is to be noted here that the date of interference is shown as 21.01.2013 in the proposed amendment at Para No.9(a), which is the date of cause of the action for the suit. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed their written BRNlR.J cRP 360,2025 statement on 08.07.2013 itself by denying the title of tl-ro petitioners. No plausible explanation is given by the petitioners what rnade them to wait for 11 years for filing the amendment application.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that imitation For declaration is 12 years but not 3 years, the said submission is not accepted in view of the fact that the petitioners do n,tt fall under Article 64 or 65 of Limitation Act.

17.i. The decision in Pankaja anci another (suprat; is not appiicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that in the abcve said case during pendency of the suit respondents have violated th€ Court orders and encroached the suit property to an extent of 15 x :t5 thereby an application came to be filed for amendment of plaint seeking possession of the said encroached area and to declare thr: plaintiffs as owners of A-1, B, lvl, N, N-1, O-1, O, L. Coming to the case on hand, the petitioners contended that due to the interference of the rcspondents/d efendants their title came under the cloud. The [acl-s irt the above decision are completely different with the case on hand.

17.2. Oruganti Ramulu (supr-a2) is also not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that an amendment application was filed amending the suit for perpetual injunction to suit For declaration of title, recoveny of possession and for mandatory injunction to cjisrnantle the basements and that to implede defendant Nos.3 to :21 in the suit. BRMR.J cRP 360 2025 The principals laid down in the above said decision is that the High Court is having power of superintendence to correct any error and procedural error and any manifest injustice both on facts and law or evidence or otherwise. Coming to the case on hand the amendment application filed by the petitioners is to seek a declaration of their properties in view of the alleged interference of the respondents'

18. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has failed to address the issue of limitation in its order' On perusal of the order of the Trial Court at Para No.13 it held that "as per the Limitation Act, the limitation period for filing a suit for declaration of title is 3 years from the date of denial"' The submission of the petitioners counsel is not accepted.

19. In Mallavas case (supra3) the Supreme Court observed that "ordinarily when a suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed and recovery of possession, the same would suggest that the title of the plaintiffs has already been lost. While seeking to get the sale deed set aside of the grounds as may have been urged in the plaint, the plaintiffs would be said to be trying to regain his title over the suit property and recover the possesslon. In such circumstances the period of limitation would be 3 years and not 12 years'

20.ThefindingsoftheTrialcourtthatthelimitationperiodforfiling suit for declaration of title is 3 years and the reasons mentioned by the ) ) ) ) 10170 BRMR-,I cRP 360_202s petitioners rn the application is not justified. As statL.d supra the petitioners except stating that because of the interr. e!-ence of the respondents/defenda nts their tiue over the respectiv€ plots came under cloud. The petitioners have not made out any case and they have not given bonafide reasons that they could not raisie the matter before the ccmmencement of the triai. The amendment r;ought by the petitioners would cause prejudice to the respondents and the application filed is a malafide application. The Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builder-s (supraa) held that the Cour-t shouicl decline the amendment if a fresh suit on the amendment claims would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court.

21. Civil Revision petition is dismissed without costs Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- I-.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sEcTffi( OFFICER I J To

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet 2. One CC to SRI KARNAM RAMESH, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI N. PRAVEEN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0rf/04/2025 ORDER CRP.No.360 ol 2O25 o (-) t *

1.----::- r inE s 6 10 itjr 206 z C).t t rATC -- DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L b 6\