THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.

BHANUMATHI

Civil Revision Petition No.2321 of 2022

ORDER:

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is

filed challenging the order, dated 20.10.2022, allowing I.A.No.626

of 2022 in O.S.No.777 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VI

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, filed under Order VI Rule

17 and Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint schedule

as regards southern boundary as “plot No.124 belonging to the

plaintiff No.1’s husband” in place of “plot No.125 belonging to the

plaintiff”.

2. Heard Sri G. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/

defendant and Sri D.Butchi Babu, learned counsel for the

respondents/plaintiffs.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual

injunction taking a plea that the 1 st plaintiff (the sole plaintiff who

filed the suit and later died pending the suit) purchased the house

site in an extent of 134 square yards from the Armed Reserve Police

Cooperative Building Society Limited No.G-2629 under a registered

sale deed, 28.12.1999, bearing document No.4684/99 of S.R.O.,

Patamata, and is the absolute owner of the house bearing Door

 2
BSB, J
C. R. P.No.2321 of 2022

No.61-8/1-6A, Police Colony, Kotinagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada,

constructed by her therein. It is the further case of the 1st plaintiff

that at the time of purchase of plot by her, on the northern side of

her plot (bearing number 125), there is some piece of site left

fallow without any use for the society and since allotment of all the

plots (125 in number) to the members of the society was

completed, the representatives of the society handed over

possession of Plot No.125 along with the said site on the northern

side of plot No.125 to the 1st plaintiff empowering her to enjoy the

same also, and therefore, the northern boundary of the site of the

plaintiff was shown as 33 feet road. Thus, the 1st plaintiff claims

apart from 134 square yards, extra site between the road and the

northern boundary of Plot No.125. The 1st plaintiff claimed

possession of the site in Plot No.125 and the extra site since the

date of purchase under the said sale deed and raising a tin sheet

shed in her plot and the extra site and being enjoying the property

to the knowledge of one and all, including the defendant, for more

than 18 years and perfected her title by adverse possession also

over the plaint schedule site.

4. The plaint schedule is originally described as follows:

 3
BSB, J
C. R. P.No.2321 of 2022

“House site of an extent of 134 square yards situate in

R.S.No.39/1, Police Colony, Kamakotinagar, Krishnalanka,
Vijayawada being bounded by:
East : Property of Nadella Balachandrudu
South : Plot No.125 belonging to the plaintiff
West : 20 feet road
North : 30 feet road……”

However, the plaintiffs now seeks amendment to the plaint

schedule, in describing the southern boundary as ”plot No.124

belonging to the plaintiff’s husband”. ‘The plaintiff’ here means ‘the

1st plaintiff’.

5. Petitioners filed memo, dated 06.07.2023, enclosing the sale

deed, its translation copy and the sketch by serving copies on the

respondents. The respondents do not dispute the same.

 4
BSB, J
C. R. P.No.2321 of 2022

6. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement

denying the averments in the plaint and claimed that the 1st plaintiff

encroached the plaint schedule property and that she is not entitled

to the equitable relief of perpetual injunction. It is further mainly

contended that the plaint schedule property is left for establishing

school for society and that the eastern plot to Plot No.125 is Plot

No.120 of Nadella Balachandrudu and the northern boundary of plot

No.120 is plot No.63 of Nadella Madhusudhana Rao and the western

boundary of plot No.63 under his title deed bearing No.2167/2001

clearly falsifies the contention of the 1st plaintiff and that the 1st

plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts and also that suit

for bare injunction without seeking the relief of declaration is not

maintainable.

7. In the petition filed seeking amendment of the plaint

schedule, petitioners stated that the trial has been completed and

the arguments were also completed on 11.10.2022 and during the

course of arguments, it came to light that a mistake was crept in

preparation of the plaint schedule property in narrating the southern

boundary and that the mistake is due to oversight and is not willful,

negligent or default of the petitioner and that unless the mistake is

rectified, petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

 5
BSB, J
C. R. P.No.2321 of 2022

8. The petition was opposed by filing a counter of the

respondent/defendant denying the contents of the petition and

further stating that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC added by

the amendment is not satisfied in this case and that by amending

the schedule, the entire nature of the case would be changed and

the plaintiffs are not asking the amendment to the extent of the

property with clear evil intention and further that the petition is field

to withdraw the earlier admission of the plaintiffs in the pleadings

and evidence since the 1st plaintiff has no title over the disputed

property.

9. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition

observing that the amendment is only in respect of the correct

boundary of the schedule property based on the registered sale

deed under exhibit A1 and that the amendment is only as per the

said document, but not claiming 268 cents of site and accordingly,

the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint schedule at the place

of southern boundary as “plot No.124 belongs to the plaintiff No.1’s

husband” instead of plaintiff’s property.

10. Having been aggrieved by the order, the revision petition is

filed by the respondent/defendant.

 6
BSB, J
C. R. P.No.2321 of 2022

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial

Court erroneously allowed the amendment which would change the

whole case and that too, after completion of the arguments as well.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order

impugned in the revision.

13. Since the beginning, the contention and case of the 1 st

plaintiff is that she purchased 134 square yards of site in Plot

No.125 and she was put in possession of the same along with

adjacent site upto road on northern side which was left fallow (un-

indicated extent) after allotting plots to all 125 members of the

society. The relief in the suit is claimed to the site of 134 square

yards which is equal to the site purchased and the boundaries are:-

North: Road, South: Plot No.125 (which she purchased)

West: Road, and East: Property of Nadella Bala Chandrudu.

But, property of Bala Chandrudu is Plot No.120 which is on east of

Plot No.125 but not on east of the adjacent disputed site. As per

the plan, Plot No.120 of Balachandrudu is on east of the disputed

site. Thus, the relief is in respect of not only the site purchased

under the sale deed to an extent of 134 square yards but also extra

site. In this regard, prima facie evidence which the plaintiff relies is
 7
BSB, J
C. R. P.No.2321 of 2022

that the southern boundary of the purchased property is shown as

33 feet road and not the site of the society which was left over.

14. Thus, from the above sketch, it is not clear as to whether the

1st plaintiff is claiming the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of

schedule property of 134 square yards along with extra site or the

suit relief is limited only to the extent of extra site. In either case

even after the proposed amendment, it is seen that the boundaries

do not match. If the relief is sought in respect of the property

covered by the sale deed and also the extra site, the whole

boundary is not complete as it does not contain the boundary of plot

No.63. If the relief is sought only in respect of the extra site, even

then also boundary of eastern site must be owner of Plot No.63, but

not Plot No.120 and the southern boundary must also be the 1st

plaintiff’s own property, i.e., plot No.125 but not her house property

in plot No.124. As such, since the proposed amendment is

defective and it is not clear as to whether the plaintiff is seeking

perpetual injunction in respect of the property covered by the sale

deed along with extra site or only in respect of extra site, the

petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed.

15. Accordingly and for the foregoing discussion, the Civil Revision

Petition is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 20.10.2022,

 8
BSB, J
C. R. P.No.2321 of 2022

passed in I.A.No.626 of 2022 in O.S.No.777 of 2018 and dismissing

the said petition.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
10.07.2023
RAR