S. Ravi Kumar, J.

1. This revision is preferred against order dated 18-08-2008 passed in I.A. No. 360/2008 in O.S. No. 38/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:-

Revision petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 38/2006 for declaration of title and permanent injunction and in that suit, he filed I.A. No. 360/2008 to amend the plaint by adding a alternative relief that he is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession. When the defendant resisted the amendment petition on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and also cause of action, the trial Court dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the Court below committed material irregularity by not exercising the powers vested on it. He submitted that amendment of pleadings can be made at any stage before commencement of trial and in special circumstances, it can be sought after commencement of trial and when the plaintiff claimed for the alternative relief of recovery of possession, the trial Court ought to have considered the same, as no prejudice would be caused to the defendants on account of the proposed amendment. He further submitted that alternative relief of possession is permissible and to support of his argument, he relied on a decision of this Court in C. Laxmi Devi v. S. Abdul Rehiman, 2006 (1) ALT 4 besides decision of Supreme Court in Surednder Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh, 2009 (12) SCALE, decision of Rajasthan High Court in Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 AIHC 2926 and decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardar Singh v. Smt. Gulvant Kaur, AIR 1991 NOC 90 (PUNJ. AND HAR.).

5. On the other hand, Advocate for respondents submitted that when the plaintiff filed the suit with specific plea i.e., he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit, the proposed amendment would contradict the said plea and being a plaintiff, he cannot take contradicting pleas and the trial Court rightly dismissed the amendment petition. He further submitted that the proposed amendment would completely change the nature of the suit and also original cause of action and as per settled law, such amendments cannot be permitted and the trial Court rightly refused the relief of amendment and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the plaintiff can be permitted to plead the alternative relief of possession in a suit for declaration and injunction?

7. Point:- Admittedly, suit is filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. According to plaint averments, the suit schedule property, which is an agricultural land in an extent of Acs. 14-11 guntas in Sy. Nos. 570, 571 & 572 of Ootla Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District originally belonged to one Shaik Ali S/o. Shaik Ahmed, who gifted them orally on 12-01-1956 in favour of his nephew Sri Shaik Mahmood and thereafter, he died issueless. According to plaint, the said property was purchased from Shaik Mahmood through an agreement of sale dated 18-09-1976 and obtained possession and subsequently, on 08-02-2006, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since the date of agreement i.e., 18-09-1976. According to plaint averments, the defendants along with some other persons went to suit property on 20-05-2006 and obstructed men working in the schedule property and demanded plaintiff to pay some money and that made him to file the suit. So, it is the specific case in the plaint that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property uninterruptedly from 1976 and interference was caused by defendants on 20-05-2006. Now the alternative relief claimed by