The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Defendants IA NO: 1 OF m24 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances 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. 141 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, pending the main Revision Petition before this Honorable Court. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition un,ler Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circu rstalces stated in the atfidavit fil(d i1 support of the petition, the High Court rre,y lre pleased to extend inter m stay granted by this Hon'ble Court in lA No.1 of 202 + in CRp No, 1946 of 2021 on ( 1-07 -2024 tor further period of 4 weeks. 1 I Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.L. Krishna Prasad Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri N. Hari Prasad The Court made t 1e following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CTWL REVISION PETITION NO.r945 O'P 20/24 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 0L.05.n24 in I.A.No.154 of 2024 in O.S.No.141 of 2015 passed by the Senior Civil]udge at Nalgonda.

2. Heard Sri T.L.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri N.Hari Prasad, leamed counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants before the kial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioners filed a suir in O.S.No.141 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civit Judge at Nalgonda, for perpetual injunction against *re respondents restraining them from interferir-rg w ith the suit schedul,e property. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed interlocutory application zride I.A.No.l 5l of 2023 urrcier Order VI RuIe 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to amend the plcarlings of the plaint. In the said applicatiory it is contended that along n,ith the suit, petitioners also filed I.A.No.495 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 ancl 2 of CpC seeking to grant temporary injunction and the responclent No.2 filed counter stating that the suit schedule propertv is coparccnery property of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the responrlc.t No. I ar-rd that the same ,/l D; A,J ' -RP \c l9J6 ol2A2J 2 was partiticned lrnong them and that he is claiming righ's >t'sing on registered .'ale t ,eeds. Therefore, in view of challenge nratle by the respondentri rvidr regard to tire title of the Petitioners' it ts lle:ossary to seek declaratior, injunction and also for cancellation o sale deeds bearing dot:um'3 rt Nos 1702 of 2006 daled 25'02'2006 anr'l 114l[i of 2006 dated 16.01i.201-)t'

5. Thc resI onclents filed counter and corlterld{:d that the amendmer,ts so.rqht for by the petitioners are barred bv la'r' ;'r'd further contendccl thi: t resPondents filed written statement ('L-l denying t re li ght and title of the petitionets' howev :r' I A ' for amendmetrt rv: s filed in the month of December' )-023 t e' after eight vears after fili rg of written statement. Therefore' the rprrlication is :5.08.201 5 barred b1' Iirnrt rtion and hence, liable to be dismisse'l

6. The h.i.tl (lourt zride impugned order dated 01 05 202 [ clismisscd the applicatroL- r'r'ith a specific observation that petitioner s tii-1 rrot ave'r or whisp:r a. to what prevented them from filing t re a pprlicatio|t seeking tlte arr ctrdment of the plaint when they have kn'rn k'dge about the clenial ,ri he title and also setting up title over th<' sr-tit schcclulc property bv tl e respondent No'2 by vktue of sale rleed l-he trial Court further obst'"-r t'cl that in view of the ratio laid d'ln'rr lrv the I lor-r'ble 3 LNA,J, CRP No l9a6 of 2o2a Apex Court in Union of India v. pramod Guptar, the application fi.led by the petitioners after expiry of period of limitation despite having knowledge about the denial of title by the respondents in the year 2015, when the written statement was filed, cannot be entertained. T Leamed counser for the pedtioners wourd submit that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the pedtioners on improper appreciation of the facts and law and furrher submitted that trial Court also failed to consider the well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aaathula Sudhakar v. p.Buchi Reddy and others2. Learned counsel further submitted that trial court wrongly relied upon the judgments of Hontrle supreme court in Praaod Gupta (supra) and Voltas Ltd. v. Rolta India Limitedr and other judgments, which have no application to the lacts o[ the present . He further submitted that since there is a clear denral of title of petitioners by the respondents, it is necessary ro amend the pleadings and if the application is not allou.ed, petirioners u,ill be put to irreparable loss and injury and fina,y, prayed ro alrow the civil Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the trial CASE Court.

8. Per contra, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the trial court has rightry dismissed the appric:rtion as the same is ' (2005) 12 scc 1 2008 ArR (sc) 2033 '{2014)4sCC516 I 4 I i f ! : . ! ! l ', l i 1 i I ! I I I I I-NA,J, CI5 to.l9t6 oI202a 4 Lrarred by limit rtion' He further submitted that suit \r as f t1()d in the year 2015 ancl 'l'ritten statement was filed in the montl-r of December' 2015, wherein he respondents have taken categoncal stand that suit schedule l)rop€ rty 1s a coparcenery property of the petiliont r No' 1 and the iather of tht' respondent No'l and the sanle !\rz.s partitioned among lhem a nd that father of the respondent No l hrrd erecuted a in hvour of respondent No'l and basin6; gift deed settlemen t de,r ci, respondent No l had executed two leg:slered sale deeds in favcur of respondent No'2' It is further con'ended that clespite clear ;rand taken in the written statemcnt' p:til-ioners filed application fo- amendment of pleadings only in the yr:ar l2O23 It is speciIrca)h c:r ntr:nded that limitation for seeking de':lar:LtLon of title and canr:eliar c,n o[ document is only three years from tt e date right accruesanddatcofknowledge,whereasinthepl-.esentCaSe, applicatron 'r" rs filed after eight years from the date of lili:r11 ol writLen stalemctrLard,therefore,appticationisclearlybarrecl',limitation the gift (,r anclthetrirllCc,urthasrightlydismissedtheapplic.rtUrrl.Itislrnally r 1al petitioners failed to point out ':'ny illegality or i r the impugned order and hence' Revision js liable to be contended irregularitr drsrniss:ci

9. P:rusi I of the record would disclose that ir'itialtl' petitioners filed a r;uit I rr perpetual injunction restraining the r<:sp'o ndents from inlgrfering'r iLh the suit schedule property in the month o April' 2O15 'Le month of ,nd tlr, r,'pnrldcnt No.2 filed written statemenl i' LNA,J, CRP No 1946 of2024 5 December, 2015 and has taken categorical stand that the suit schedule property was partitioned among the petitioner No. 1 and the 1 I father of respondent No.1 ald tJ:e registered gift deed was executed by the father of respondent no.l in favour of respondent No. 1 ulde gift settlement deed vide document No.6282 dated 07. 11.2003 and the same was incorporated in the revenue records by the revenue officials. Thereafter, the respondent no. I executed two sale deeds vide document Nos. 1702 of 2006 dated, 25.02.20O6 and 2448 of 2006 dated 16.03.2006 in favour of respondent no.2 in respect of the suit schedule property and the sarne was also incorporated in the revenue records and further, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in the name of respondent no.2 and he has been enjoying the suit schedule property since the date of purchase. I0- Admittedly, application for amendment of pleadings was [[ed in the month of December, 2023 i.e., after about eight years from the date of hling of written statement. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondents, the limitation for seeking relief of declaration of title is three years from the date when the right first accrucs as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, and relief seeking cancellation ol an instrument or decree is three years from the date of knou.ledge as per Article 59 ot the Limitation Act. I l. The above principle is reiterated in catena of decisions o[ the Hon'ble Ape* Court. In Voltas Ltd.,(supra), which was rcferred ro by the trial Court, the Honble Apex Court hetd that having allor.r,ed the LNA,J C V n;o 1946 of 2D1 6 period of rievel:l vears to elapse from the date of hting t'hr: sr-r:t and the period of Iimit: tion being three years under Article 54 r:f tLe Schedule to the Linril.ati ln Act, 1963 any amendment on the grourids set out' woulddt:featthevaluablerightoflimitationacc.uingtothe respondellt. I he trial Court also relied upon the dec Ls iorl :f Hon'ble Supreme Coutt ir Pramod Gupta (supra)' whereas ttre Hcrr'ble Apex Court he d t tr rt clelay and latches on the part of th': pa rf ies to the proceedir gs u )uld also be a relevant factor for allowing or c isallowing an applicatior: 1b:- amendment of the pleadings'

12. tn Radhika Devi Vs' Bajrangi Singh and others'r' the Hon'ble Supreme oorLr': 1as categorically held that where a party acquires right by bar of lirlr tal ion and if the same is sought to be -al;en away by amendm3n t r I :leadings, the amendment' in such :ir':rtmstances ' would bt: rcl-t serl, The ratio laid down by the Hon,b1€ f]ul]t'eme Court in Rcrdhika Deui's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the presen L (la'j(ll

13. As riql tl) observed by the trial Court' there is <lear delay' Ialches rr n d r n ' he part of the petitioners and in fact' '-ht' ilmendment also clearlY barre i !:" limitation sought f,:' ti Lhe PetLttoners are under Artic:ll i 58 and 59 o[ the Limitation Act ar''d ' l.rr:re[cre' the trial lrrsrtilied in dismissing the application liled bv the Court 'r'ir s pe Lrtlo n,I rs '(tgg6) u scc a rr: : : i I I I I I I I t a : ': i ! I I l 4 I 7 to""''o*"?i/;

14. In view of the abo opinion of this court, ,nve discussion and legal position, in considered ;::"J:Ji, ff dev'id'r a,Y meri'[ or irregularity in by the trial court' 'l ;:',ff ,::':::;.i Revision petition is rial dismissed ?here shal, r. :l: ":":" :*;"1' "i:',""":".1.1*"' Pending miscel_laneous applications if any shall stand closed. To, /ffRUE COPY// o"","roi?'hEAAy,JXf *-I --::> SECT'ON OF/,". R I i p;; ff p;lli ;it*#a#i*:m r.puc kannDL I l i 1 l i i j HIGH COUTTT DATED:041Cf,12025 ORDER CRP.Ncr 1946 ot 2024 -;-: : -"'. .__ ii ., /t ( 0 { J\.1' ?i}?5 z // 7 ',.,)1, \..r !o F ;'-=.i ---,, ( DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISIIfN PETITION I l i j I ! I I I ! i i