M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Since these Revisions arise out of the same suit between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Sri O. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner in both the Revisions and Sri S.V. Muni Readdy, learned counsel for 1st respondent in both the Revisions.

2. The petitioner herein is 1st defendant in the suit O.S. No. 462 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. This suit was filed against her and others by 1st respondent herein for a perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with 1st respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

3. Written statement was filed by petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 8 opposing the suit claim. Issues were framed and trial commenced.

4. Thereafter 1st respondent herein filed I.A. No. 303 of 2014 to frame additional issue - "whether the registered relinquishment deed dt.20-07-1978 under Ex.A-5 was executed by Alimelamma and her daughters viz., 1st defendant herein and Lakshmamma in favour of K. Venkata Swamy and his brother 2nd defendant herein with regard to their entire immoveable and moveable properties rights, is true and correct?"

5. This application was opposed by petitioner on the ground that there was no pleading in the plaint on this point and without a pleading, additional issue cannot be framed. So that application was dismissed by Court below on 17-06-2014 on the ground that there was no pleading in the plaint.

6. In the meantime, trial in the suit had concluded and the matter was posted for arguments in the suit.

7. At that stage, 1st respondent herein filed I.A. No. 414 of 2014 to permit him to amend the plaint and introduce a pleading regarding Ex.A-5 document. He also filed I.A. No. 413 of 2014 to reopen the suit to permit him to file the consequent amendment petition to amend the plaint.

8. Both these applications were opposed by petitioner herein denying that 1st respondent came to know of Ex.A-5 pending suit. She contended that the relinquishment deed Ex.A-5, which is now sought to be pleaded by 1st respondent/plaintiff is a registered document and that registration of such a document itself is 'public notice' under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act') and so he is deemed to have knowledge of it. It was contended that the evidence on the side of plaintiff was closed long back and 1st respondent had produced the alleged relinquishment deed into Court but did not come forward to amend the plaint at that stage; that now after closure of evidence on both sides, when the matter is posted for arguments, these applications have been filed; and these cannot be allowed because they are filed only to harass the defendants and to drag on the suit. It is contended that if the plaint is allowed to be amended at this stage, all the defendants would have to file additional written statements, then additional issues have to be framed and thereafter again both parties have to lead additional evidence on the fresh pleadings and practically there has to be a de novo trial. It was also pointed out that the proposed amendment takes away an important admission by 1st respondent/plaintiff that petitioner is owner of the adjoining property and introduces a new case, which cannot be permitted.

9. By order dt.25-07-2014, I.A. No. 414 of 2014 was allowed. Consequently, I.A. No. 413 of 2014 was also allowed.

10. In the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 414 of 2014, while the Court below admitted that the application is filed at the fag end of arguments, it accepted the plea of 1st respondent that he came to know about the existence of Ex.A-5 six months back after the suit was filed. So it held that the amendment of the plaint can be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

11. Challenging the same, these two Revisions are filed.

12. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that Ex.A-5 relinquishment deed in