ORDER :

1. Defendants in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 31.01.2022 in I.A. No. 1139 of 2019 in O.S. No. 207 of 2019 (old O.S. No. 65 of 2016) on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram.

2. Respondent, being the plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 65 of 2016 on the file Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 07.03.2013 in respect of plaint schedule property which was obtained by defendants 1 to 4 by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation without any consideration and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from alienating the plaint schedule property etc. Suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 207 of 2019 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram.

3........

(a) In the plaint, it was contended inter-alia that plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and the same was gifted to plaintiff by her mother at the time of her marriage; that pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of plaintiff; that in February, 2013 defendants 1 to 4 approached and requested the plaintiff to arrange money for higher studies of defendants 3 and 4 and when the plaintiff expressed her inability, defendants informed that one Velagapudi Vasudeva Rao, husband of sister of 2nd defendant agreed to provide money with a condition of executing mortgage deed in respect of schedule property; that considering the future of defendants 3 and 4 and believing the words of defendant 1 and 2, plaintiff signed all the papers on the impression that transaction was mortgage deed; that 2nd defendant also took pattadar pass book and title deed.

(b) Plaintiff came to know through Metlapalli Sivaiah, who is cultivating tenant of schedule property about the execution of sale deed said to be executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 to 4 for a consideration of Rs. 9,56,000/- that no consideration was passed and the defendants have no capacity to pay the sale consideration; that the plaintiff has been suffering from diseases and attending different hospitals for treatment and eventually, filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra.

4. Written statement is filed by defendants 2 to 4 and the suit is being contested.

5. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1139 of 2019 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint seeking recover of possession of property.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of said petition, it was contended inter-alia that along with plaint I.A. No. 243 of 2016 was filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the schedule property. I.A. No. 244of 2016 was filed for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession of plaint schedule property. Pending those interlocutory applications, defendants took possession of schedule property by force in December, 2016; that upon filing memo dated 24.04.2017 by the petitioner, I.A. No. 244 of 2016 was closed as infructuous. In view of developments, plaintiff filed application for recovery of possession of property.

7. Respondents 2 to 4 filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended inter-alia that at the time of execution of sale deed, plaintiff delivered pattadar pass book and title deed; that revenue authorities updated the revenue records and mutated the names of defendants; that pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued; that defendants 2 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of the property; that plaintiff has to prove that reliefs sought is within the limitation and that if the amendment is permitted, it will give unfair advantage to the plaintiff and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

8. During the enquiry, no oral evidence was let in by the parties