The High Court · 2025

AND 1. Smt. Akkala Rama Devi (divorced), Wo.Late. Akkala Ramulu, aged 76 years, Occ. Retired Teacher, Ri/o. Plot No.1274, Papireddy Colony, Near Railway Station, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District.

2. Smt. Dara Laxmi Jeevana Jyothi, D/o. Smt. Akkala Rama Devi, W/o. Dara Varadaraju aged 54 years, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o. Plot No. 1274, Papireddy Colony, Near Railway Station, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District.

3. Smt. Aduma Padmaja, D/o Smt. Akkala Rama Devi Wo Aduma Narsing Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ. H/w, R/o. H. No. 11-1311 , Shanthi Nagar, Near Geetha Schobl, Patancheru Municipality, Patancheru, Medak District Now Sangareddy District ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants a lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.1164 oI 2022 on lhe file of Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally pending disposal of this Civil Revision Petition. 7 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GONAMANDA NARASIMHI Counsel for the Respondents: _ _ _ _ The Court made the following: ORDER a IN THE HIGH COI'RT FOR TIIE STATE OF TEII\NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOI'RABLE JUSTICE MOUSHI'MI BIIATTACIIARYA C.R.P.No.4434 of 2025 Date: 72.12.2025 Between Smt. Akkala Jayalakshmi (died per LR: 2nd petitioner) and another. AND petrtloners Smt. Akkala Rama Devi and two others Mr GoruuDaida Narasimha, Iearned counscl appearrng for Lhc peutroners respondents ORDER This Rcvision Petition ariSes out of an order dated

13.1O.2025 in I.A.No.9O of 2025 in O.S.No. 1164 of 2022 on Lh,c tile of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, dismissing the said application hled by the petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order Vl Rule 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint in the Suit \II}-J I R I) \o 41-t L,t 1025 was for a

2. The prayer in the original Suil declaration of title over the suit schedule properr in favour ol the petitioner No.2 and for a declaration that ..1 e registerecl Gift Deed dated 23.02.2O16 as well as the Agrr_.r:: rent of Sale dated 15. 11.1997 and its subsequent execution : re ,ulr and voiC and not binding on the petitioner No.2, r nd also to restrain the respondents herein from rnterferi t; w,ith the petitioners, peacelul possession of the suit schcdrr e and from selling, mortgaging or arienating rhe :i .r t property in any manncr and to deliver the vacant the same to thc petitioner No.2. The suit schechr e therein comprised of a rcsidential house. ession of properry, property schedule L_c ls ;eeking to

3. Thc petirioncrs filed I.A.No.90 of 2025 amend the plaint including the insertion of various the prayer portion in ter alia, to pass a preliminary partition and separate possessiop of the suit schedul A and B properties by entitling (2/4rh share) the petitioner tV r.2 to its inclusive of the 1/4th share of his deceased moth,: petitioner No. lecree for reliefs in r.e. the l, and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 tr ts 1/4rr In the Amendment petition, the petiti< r ers also inscrtion of the relie f for the appointn.r nt of an ln the final decree proceei ngs for share each. Prayed for the Advo@te Commissio ner MB.J C.R.P No.4434 of2025 division of the suit properties and for allotment of the respective shares of the parties as per the preliminary decre e . By virtue of the proposed amendment, the petitioners intended to add another property i.e. agricultural land as schedule.B' property in the plaint.

4. Even in the absence of the impugned order dated

13.10.2025, this Court is of the view that the nature of the amendment sought for by the petitioners/ plaintiffs is completely different so much so that it would alter the nature and character of the suit as originally hled. In essence, the petitioners sought to transfer the Suit for declaration against the registered Sale Deed to a Suit for partition, which is impermissible in law. The Trial Court hence correctly dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioners tha[ too after three years from filing of the Suit. The Trial Court also found that the petitioners did not offer any explanation as to why the petrLioners omitted the Suit schedule 'B'property at the time of filing of the Suit in 2022 and relying on Order II Rule 2 (3) of the CPC (incorrectly mentioned as Order II Rule 3), it was noted that the said property cannot be added at this stage (i.e. further cross-examination of the petitioner No.2) in contravention o[ the procedure. The finding of the Trial Court 4 NIt].J ('. I 'No.{4-11 of:025 \ that by virtue of the amendment, the petitioners ar( intending to alter the nature of the Suit from that of declarat on of title and recovery of possession to a Suit for partition u, I ch cannot be allowed, is sustainable. The Trial Court henc t , correctly dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioners. I ris Court accordingly finds no error in the impugned c I ler dated

13.IO.2O25. Consequently we find no merit in tl-: Revision Petition.

5. C.R.P.No.4434 of 2025 is according:. dismissed along with all connected applications. There shal re no order as to costs SD,.L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// iEGTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy Districl 2. One CC to Sri Gonamanda Narasimha, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies a To, b ABK./Sa HIGH COURT DATED: 1211212025 ORDER CRP.No.4434 ot 2025 I \ . STAI€ o() r : N 'lir? 1 n 7 -t t .,.t Df ' "-'^' {':\" :" - i';.., . ._ -4.- ': -:=::':--/ DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS t q j\ v \ 'l