L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 18-6-2003 passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, karimnagar in LA. No. 297 of 1999 in A. S. No. 11 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 588 of 1988 in the Court of Principal District munsif, Karimnagar against the petitioner and another for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of 366. 05 sq. yards of land out of Survey no. 39, situated near District Head Quarters hospital, Karimnagar. The Trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 27-1-1997. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed A. S. No. 11 of 1997 in the court of I Additional District Judge, karimnagar. In that appeal, he filed LA. No. 297 of 1999 under Order 6, Rule 17 cpc seeking permission to amend the plaint so as to incorporate the relief of recovery of possession. Through the order under revision, the Trial Court allowed the I. A. , subject to payment of costs.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that on dismissal of the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, a valid right had accorded to the petitioner and it is impermissible to amend the plaint at this stage. He further contends that the plea of recovery of possession is also barred by limitation since the petitioner can be said to have perfected her title by way of adverse possession.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the pleadings can be amended at any stage of proceedings and the I. A. No. 297 of 1999 was filed in view of the finding of the trial Court that the respondent was not in possession of the suit schedule property.

( 5 ) THE petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Appellate court in allowing the application filed to amend the plaint. The suit filed by the respondent for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction was dismissed. The respondent pleaded that he was dispossessed from the suit schedule property after filing of the suit and in that view of the matter, the necessity arose to amend the plaint. The objection from the petitioner for such an amendment is on the ground that the character of the suit gets altered and that the relief claimed through the amendment is barred by limitation. So far as the first aspect is concerned, it needs to be seen that the respondent has already claimed the relief of declaration of title when the suit was originally filed and the relief of recovery of possession or injunction are ancillary to it. As the respondent proceeded on the assumption that he is in possession of the suit schedule property, he did not seek the relief of recovery of possession. After his contention was repelled, he reconciled to the fact that it is necessary for him to claim the relief of recovery of possession also. Once the respondent has claimed the relief of declaration of title, which is the principal relief, amendment of the plaint to incorporate the plea of recovery of possession cannot be said to have substantially altered the nature of the suit.

( 6 ) THE next ground is about limitation. It is contended that the relief of recovery of possession is barred by limitation since the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property since more than 12 years. This plea could have been considered and appreciated, had the provisions of the limitation Act been as they stood before the 1963 Act. In a suit for recovery of possession, the plaintiff was under obligation to satisfy the Court that he was in possession of the suit schedule property 12 years before filing of the suit. However, Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have changed the purport of the plea of adverse possession. In a suit where the recovery of possession is based on the title, it is always for the defendant to establish that his possession of the suit schedule property was adverse to the plaintiff for over a period of 12 years. The question as to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document