ORDER :

1. This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 30.11.2018, dismissing I.A.No.985 of 2018 in O.S.No.740 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Rajamahendravaram, filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint as proposed in the memo filed along with the application. (b) The amendments proposed to be made in the plaint, as per the memo filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, are as follows:

“i) Add the following paragraph after paragraph No.3:

“4. The allegations in paragraph 5 of the written statement of the 1st defendant that the plaintiff was given sufficient amount as Streedhana and she was given 5 sovereigns of gold are not correct. Only customary presentations were given to the plaintiff at the time of marriage. The other allegations that the plaintiff’s husband incurred heavy debts and became pauper; that the plaintiff made a demand for partition; that the plaintiff’s father made oral partition and gave one house site in Kakinada to the plaintiff; that in the year 1998 the plaintiff sold away that house site and discharged debts of her husband to the tune of 2 lakh rupees and that the plaintiff was ousted from the coparcenary property are all false. There was no coparcenary property. Item 1 of the plaint schedule was purchased by Suryarao, his father and brothers as joint property in the year 1949 and it never attained the status of coparcenary property. A few years later, after the death of Suryarao’s father, the properties so purchased were divided among joint purchasers and the plaintiff’s father Suryarao got item 1 of the plaint schedule along with other properties. Thus the 1st item of the plaint schedule was the individual and absolute property of Suryarao and not coparcenary property.”

ii) Add the following paragraph after the existing paragraph 4 of the plaint:

“6. Katta Suryarao was not heavily indebted to creditors as alleged by the 1st defendant in her written statement. He did not obtain loans from any private individual much less from Yadla Satyanrayana Murthy of Vemagiri. The allegations made in paragraph 6 of the written statement of the 1st defendant that the plaintiff did not look after her father while he (sic.was) ill is false. The further allegations that Suryarao agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to Yadla Satyanrayana Murthy; that being on pious obligation the defendants 1 and 2 and sons of the 2nd defendant had executed sale deeds in favour of Yadla Satyanrayana Murthy for the plaint schedule properties towards debts incurred by Suryarao are all false and invented. The defendants 1 and 2 had sold plaint schedule items 1 and 2 deliberately avoiding to join the plaintiff and behind her back apprehending that she may object to sale of the properties. Though the 1st defendant at length submits about the debts, there is absolutely no reference to such debts in the sale deeds. They clearly show that the defendants 1 and 2 had received cash consideration on the date of execution of the sale deeds.”

“7. This suit is within the period of limitation as it was filed in the year 2012, while the sale deeds were executed in the years 2005 and 2006. This suit is within twelve years period of limitation even from the date of demise of Suryarao.”

“8. Yadla Satyanrayana Murthy was not a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. There was no reason for him to believe that the defendants 1 and 2 were only the legal heirs of Katta Suryarao. Minimial enquiry would have revealed that Suryarao left behind his wife, a son and a daughter. The allegations in paragraph 3 of the written statement of the 3rd defendant that her husband was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration having purchased the said properties from the defendants claimed to be the only legal heris of late Katta Suryarao is utterly false.”

“9. The allegations made in paragraph 8 of the written s