The High Court · 2025

2. The Petitroner herein is the plaintiff in the above suit and petitioner in the underlying interloc:utory appiication fiied under Order VI RuIe 17 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC). He filed the said suit against the respondent herein seeking declaration of title and recovery ol possession of the suit schedule property

3. The case ol the petitioner, 1n brief. is that he is the absolute owner of house property i.e., Plot No.33 admeasuring 10O sq. yards in survey No.557 of Kistapur Village(ward), Weaker Section Colony, Medchal Municipality & Mandal, Medchal-lVIalkajgiri District, presently covered by asbestos sheet Roofing rvith house No.A 25O/30 12.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the aforesaid piot of land was allotted to him by the Tahsilciar, MedchaJ, uide 2 assignment proceedings, dt.25.01.199O, and was put in possession of the same; and that in the month of January, 20 15, he had migrated to Bhopal of Madhya Pradesh State for his livelihood and on returning back in Dbcember, 2018, he went to the subject property and found that the respondent/ defendant is residing therein by building a room covered with asbestos cement sheet roofing.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on seeing that plot of land assigned/ allotted in his favour being occupied by the respondent/defendant, he had approached his brother, with whom he had kept the original of Patta Certificate while proceeding to Bhopal in the year 20L5, and aJter much persuasion with his brother, made available a xerox copy of the said certificate being; and thereafter, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent/defendant, who by reply notice claimed of having purchased the subject plot bearing No.33 and her name has been mutated in municipal records.

6. Petitioner further contends that on receipt of the aforesaid reply from the respondent/ defendant, the petitioner had filed the subject suit for declaration and recovery of possession of 1OO sq. yards of land assigned in his favour by the Tahsiidar, ./ ./ j/ i *!;:a. {lffi=,, I 3 Medchal, uide proceedings, dt.25.01.1990, under the belief that the said plot of land is Plot No'33.

7. Petitioner further contends that subsequently on the respondent/ defendant filing the written statement claiming ol she having got the subject property under a Will Deed, dt.24.12.2OO7, executed by her father in-law namely Pallapu Yadagiri, S/o late P.Narsimha, bequeathing the property admeasuring 100 sq. yards along with a constructed house with Asbestos Sheets Roof on open Plot No.28, the petitioner had learnt the plot being claimed by him in the subject suit is plot No.28 ancl not 33 and that he was mislead by his brother in collusion with the respondent/ defendant herein. B. Petitioner further contends that thereaJter also he had made enquiries by approaching the concerned authorities including the Telangana State Housing Corporation, which also showed that beneficiary of plot No.33 is one Sri Chinna Salgari Ramulu, S/o Say'ulu and not the petitioner herein.

9. Petitioner, thus, contends that since, the petitioner had filed the subject suit claiming to be the owner of plot No.33, on a bona fide belief based on the xerox copy of the Patta 4 Certificate furnished by his brother, he had filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint in para 1 & plaint schedule by deleting plot No.33 and in its place mentioning plot No.28.

10. It is the further case of the petitioner that except the chalge of plot number, he did not seek amendment of any of the plaint averments nor the boundaries in respect of which, he had filed the subject suit for declaration and recovery ol possession, and as such the nature of the suit would not undergo aly change.

11. Petitioner further contends that the Court below without considering the real issue involved and a,lso without considering that if the underlying petition seeking amendment to chalge the plot number from 33 to 28 is not allowed, the same would result in irreparable ioss and prejudice to the petitioner, had erroneously dismissed the same.

12. On behalf of the respondent/defendant it is contended that the petitioner having filed suit specifically seeking declaration and recovery of possession of a specific property i.e., plot No.33 admeasuring 1OO sq. yards, the petitioner t I i I I t I i I i i I ; i I i I I I I i I 5 cannot be allowed to amend the plot No'33 mentioned in the plaint to plot No.2B, which is the property of the defendant herein having got the same under a Will Deed executed by her father-in-Iaw, rvho had purchased the same from D Balaiah S/o Narsimha for valuable consideration of Rs.15,000/-'

13. It is further contended b-v the respondent that the petitioner is neither owrrer nor original assignee of the alleged suit schedule property i.e., plot admeasuring 100 sq' yards being claimed as plot No.28 or alleged plot No.33, and that the assignment patta on the basis of u'hich claim ts being made is a forged, fabricated, ald created document by the petitioner for the purpose of filing the subject suit against the responden t / de lendant.

14. On behalf of the respondent it is further contended that Court below by considering the aforesaid aspect had rightly rejected the underlying interlocutory application and thus, the same does not warralt any interference by this Court.

15. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

16. The petitioner herein had filed the subject suit claiming himself to be the absolute owner of trouse site property i.e., Plot 6 :.i No.33 admeasuring 100 sq. yards and that the said plot of land being assigned in his favour by the Tahsildar, Medchaf uide proceedings, dt.25.O 1.1990; and that he having made construction before proceeding to Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh State for his livelihood.

17. Though the petitioner, in the plaint filed by him, had claimed that he was granted with construction loan on the subject plot and the original patta certificate was taken by the officials for security purpose, and undertook to produce/file the original document at the time of trial, it is to be noted that the suit is filed in the year 2018 and the underlying interlocutory application is filed in tine year 2022. However, the petitioner did not choose to obtain the original of the patta certificate for filing the same into the Court.

18. The petitioner, by the underlying interlocutory application while seeking amendment, had contended that on he getting a legal notice issued to the respondent claiming himself to be the owner of plot No.33 and the same being encroached upon by the respondent herein, the respondent by her reply claimed to I I I -s 7 be the owner of plot No.33, and thus, he had filed the subject suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

19. It is to be noted that on the petitioner filing the subject suit against the respondent seeking declaration and recovery of possession of Plot No.33, the respondent by the u'ritten statement filed claimed that the subject plot, in respect of rrghich the suit is filed by the petitioner with the boundaries mentioned in the suit, is plot No.28 and it belongs to her having bequeathed in her favour by her father-in-law P.Yadagiri under a Will Deed, dt.24.12.2o17 and on her father-in-1aw, the executant of the Will, having deceased on 24.03.208, she had become entitled to the suit schedule property.

20. On the respondent filing her written statement in the suit in August, 20 I 9 claiming the suit schedule property to be plot No.2B and not piot No.33, the petitioner kept quiet and only in the month of March, 2022 flled the underlying interlocutory appiication under Order VI Rule 1u7 CPC seeking amendment of plot number in the piaint ald also the suit schedule property from 33 to 28. claiming that he was misgr-,.ided by his brother- Ramulu, who had furnished him a Xerox copy of the patta Certificate, which was kept with him, when he moved to Bhopal 8 for his livelihood. Thus, the petitioner contended that his brother made him to believe that the subject property is plot No.33 and not 28, and thus, the same needs to be amended in the suit filed by him against the respondent. 21 . Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that mere alteration of plot would not cause arly prejudice to the respondent or the nature of the suit would not undergo arly change, it is to be noted that it is the specific case of the petitioner that he has been assigned with patta by the Tahsildar, Medchal uide proceedings, dt.25.01. 1990 and a,lso having been sanctioned with loan for underta_king construction by the government. The said claim of the petitioner is disputed by the respondent.

22. On the respondent hling her written statement disputing the petitioner's claim, the least the petitioner could have done is to approach the concerned government authorities, with whom it is stated that the original patta certificate having been kept for securit5r purposes for extending loan for undertaking construction, and obtain certified copy of the same, and then I I L i ;i I I I I I I t ; I I I , I I I I I i,sry,Fry1 a,...:.:...}r., ......,, - 9 seek for amendment of the plot number in the suit by enclosing the said certificate.

23. Despite the petitioner having sufficient time since, the filing of the suit in the year 2019 till the filing of the underlying interlocutory application in the year 2022, ttt e petitioner did not take arty steps either to obtain the original or the certified copy thereof from the government auth orities, who it is stated as having granted construction loan by keeping the original of the said patta certificate as a security.

24. Further, the petitioner also did not choose to file any document before the Court below of he having been granted construction loan in respect of piot that has been assigned in his favour.

25. The entire case of the petitioner is based on the Xerox copy of the patta certificate, dt.25.O1.1990, stated to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Medchal.

26. The petitioner having filed the subject suit specifically claiming himself to be the owner of lald admeasuring 100 sq' yards bearing plot No.33, by the underlying application is only trying to take advantage of the change in the stand of the ::10:: respondent of she initiaily claiming to be owner of plot No.33 and in the written statement changing her version of being the owner of the property i.e., plot No.28, bequeathed by her father- in-iaw under a Will Deed, and is not plot No.33 as claimed by the petitioner

27. It is settled position of law that "one has to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defense"

28. Since, the petitioner had filed the subject suit claiming the same to be plot No.33 with specific boundaries, the petitioner is required to prove his case by adducing sufficient evidence as to his entitlement to the suit schedule land, notwithstanding the fact that the plot number mentioned in the suit may vary. 29 . The petitioner instead of proving his case as filed by him against the respondent, by the underlying interlocutory application is seeking amendment of plot mrmber claiming that mere change in plot number would not alter the nature of the suit or would not cause any prejudice, on the basis of the written statement filed by the respondent, without showing any other basis for seeking such amendment i I l l I I l i ( I I I I i E ::[1::

30. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC needs to be considered 1iberal1y, it is to be noted that nothing turns on plot number, as it is settled position of law that boundarles will prevail over survey number and the said ratio rvould equaliy apply to plot number. Thus, the petitioner ought to have proceeded with the suit by establishing his case of he being granted assignment patta in respect of lald admeasuring 100 sq. yards and the said plot of land is bounded by la-nd/plot belonging to the persons mentioned in the suit schedule.

31. In this regard, one may take note of the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Reoajeetu Builders & Deoelopers us M/5. Naraganasroatng & Sons & Ors.r rvherein the Hon'bie Supreme Court postulated the important factors to be taken into consideration while dealing u,ith applications iiled seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

32. Though it is contended by the petitioner that mere change of plot number ',r,ould not result in change of nature of the suit, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision while holding that "the Court should not t (2009)10 scc 84 .:l2i: refuse bona fid., legitimate, honest and necessary amendments, held that Court should never permit mala fide, worthless and/ or dishonest amendments".

33. Since, in the facts of the present case, though the petitioner claims of seeking amendment by the underlying application to be bona fide, since, the claim of the petitioner is based on the ora-l statement arld is not supported by any document, allowing of the underlying application permitting the petitioner to amend the plot number in the suit filed by him, a{ter lapse of neariy 3 years, cannot be said as either bonafi-de and necessary amendment.

34. Further, the petitioner having not filed the original patta certificate or at least filing the certif,lcate copy thereof obtained from the government authorities, with whom said certificate is stated to have been kept as securit5z for granting construction loan, to substantiate his case prima facie, this Court is of considered view that, if the underlying application is allowed the same would be a dishonest amendment, as observed by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in the a-forementioned decision causing prejudice to the respondent. I i I I I I I I I ::13::

35. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the Court below in dismissing the underlying interlocutory application does not suffer lrom any inlirmity or error for being interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

36. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

37. Consequently, misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending shal1 stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR kv" SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Ill Additional Junior civil Judge cum x Additional Metropolitan Magiskate, Cyberabad at Medchal.

2. One CC to Sri Sattar Manol, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D Raja Amaresh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies W TLIABK HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 I ORDER GRP.No.2861 of 2022 e-o( '_) 32 [uB 2$6 a a t' 't DISMISSING THE CRP b s \7 i I I