K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, in IA No. 590 of 1998 in OS No. 155 of 1994, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that, he along with his brother namely Ramulu, had purchased the plaint schedule property orally for a valuable consideration in or about the year 1970 from Kasagani Lingamma, Kasagani Laxmamma Swamy, the wife and son of one late Mallayya and they have been in cultivating possession of the same to the knowledge, inter alia, of the defendants. Patta has also been granted in favour of himself and his brother. In the alternative, he has pleaded that due to the long and uninterrupted continuous possession adverse to the interests of the defendants, he and his brother had perfected title by adverse possession. Since the defendants are threatening his possession, he is entitled for permanent injunction.

( 3 ) THE defendants through their written statement filed on 7-6-1995 denied the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff. They denied that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plaint schedule property. Issues were framed on 5-7-1995.

( 4 ) AFTER examining two witnesses on his behalf, the petitioner-plaintiff filed application for amending Paras 4 and 7 and the prayer clause. The proposed amendment in Para 4 runs as under:"even otherwise they (plaintiff and his brothers) perfected their title to the property by long continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment adversely to the interest of the defendants. As the cloud is caste with regard to the title of the property, the plaintiff is seeking declaration of title to the property as he perfected his title by long continuous and unobstruct possession since 1970. "

( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, amendment has been proposed in Para 7, regarding Court fees and jurisdiction, and in the prayer clause seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the property.

( 6 ) THIS application has been resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the 1st respondent has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, that he has denied the title of the petitioner-vendor, that the application is belated and that it is barred by limitation.

( 7 ) THE trial Court observed that the plaintiff-petitioner has claimed title from 1970. Therefore, according to him, he has perfected his title by adverse possession by 1982. Hence, the suit for declaration oftitle should have been filed within three years therefrom, vide Article 58 of the Limitation Act. It has been observed that the respondent has denied the title of the plaintiff through the written statement filed on 7-6-1995. Application for amendment was filed on 26-11-1998. Even if it is assumed that the cause of action arose when the title of the plaintiff has been denied through, written statement on 7-6-1995, the relief for declaration of title should have been sought at least within three years from 7-6-1995, but it has not been done. Holding so, the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the claim for declaration of title is barred by limitation.

( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal of the application, this revision has been filed.

( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel of both sides at length, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the application for amendment should be allowed for the reasons given in the subsequent paragraphs.

( 10 ) RELYING on L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. , AIR 1957 SC 357 and Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda, AIR 1957 SC 363, it has been held in the case of Mettu Naresh Kumar Reddy v. Nellore Ramamma, 1996 (3) ALD 635 = 1996 (3) ALT 521, that, the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document