IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of plaint must be allowed in a liberal manner.

This revision is preferred by the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the suit, who are the respondents as such in I.A.No.1295 of 2014. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff, while the remaining 3 respondents are defendant Nos.2, 5 and 6.

I.A.No.1295 of 2014 is filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. O.S.No.1383 of 2005 is instituted seeking partition and separate possession by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares of the parties and for allotment of the share of the plaintiff to the extent of Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.30 part, Sy.No.31 part, Sy.No.58 part and Sy.No.59 part of Dasarlapally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 2nd relief claimed therein was for cancellation of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3103 of 2003 and 3104 of 2003 dated 12.12.2003. The 3rd relief is for appointment of an Advocate-commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule properties and to allot the share of the plaintiff and the defendants as per their entitlement by metes and bounds. By moving I.A.No.1295 of 2014, the plaintiff sought for declaration that the sale deeds bearing document Nos.3103 of 2003 and 3104 of 2003 dated 12.12.2003 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff instead of the relief of cancellation as prayed for originally.

The case of the plaintiff is that Jambula Kasi Reddy and Jambula Venkat Reddy are joint owners of land of an extent of Ac.51.16 gts situated in several survey numbers at Dasarlapally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They have partitioned the said property in equal measure. Thus, each got Ac.25.28 gts. Sri Jambula Kasi Reddy was having 4 sons. Sri J.Anjan Reddy, the father of the plaintiff, J.Yadagiri Reddy, the defendant No.1, J.Surender Reddy, the defendant No.2 and J.Ganesh Reddy, the defendant No.3 in the suit. After the death of Jambula Kasi Reddy, all his 4 sons have succeeded to the above lands. The father of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed a registered gift deed vide document No.787 of 1992 dated 04.05.1992 in favour of the 5th defendant, their sister, in respect of land of an extent of Ac.1.34 gts in Sy.No.30 part, to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts in Sy.No.31 part, to an extent of Ac.1.26 gts in Sy.No.59 part. Thus, making a total extent of Ac.5.00 gts out of the total extent of Ac.25.28 gts, which they have succeeded to upon the death of their father, Jambula Kasi Reddy. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 2 sale deeds in question have been executed on 12.12.2003 with a view to defeat the rights and interests of the plaintiff – petitioner. In those set of circumstances, the plaintiff instituted suit O.S.No.1383 of 2005 seeking partition of the joint family properties and for allotment of one share to the plaintiff and for delivery of such a share by metes and bounds to her. She also sought for cancellation of the 2 sale deeds executed on 12.12.2003. Defendant Nos.4 and 6, in whose favour they stand, have been impleaded for that very reason to the suit. But however, she has realized that the cancellation of sale deeds is not the appropriate relief that can be sought for by the plaintiff as she is not one of the parties to the aforementioned 2 sale deeds and on the other hand, she ought to have claimed the relief of declaration that such sale deeds are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the I.A.No.1295 of 2014 has been filed, seeking declaration, by way of amendment.

This application was resisted mainly on the ground that the trial of the present suit has already commenced and P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and the suit is posted for further evidence of plaintiff. At that stage, the present application is moved. Hence, it is moved at a belated stage. It was also urged that on merits that the plaintiff has no case whatsoever and the present application is only an attempt to somehow drag the proceedings instead of bringing them to a quick end.

Heard Sri O.Manohar Re