Amendments to pleadings post-trial must not introduce new causes of action or cause injustice to the other side; they should be necessary for determining real questions in controversy.

ORDER :

(SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.)

The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 25.06.2024 in I.A.No.190 of 2024 in O.S.No.40 of 2017 on the file of Family Court-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Court, Srikakulam.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.40 of 2017 for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction etc. The plaintiffs pleaded title to the schedule property, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated05.07.2013, purchased from Dr.Narendra Kumar, who, in turn, purchased the schedule property from Appalakonda Rajarao in the year 2006. It was further pleaded that when the plaintiffs are preparing for construction of the boundary wall on 03.07.2017, the defendants tried to interfere and the said attempts was successfully resisted by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit was filed.

3. a) The 1^st defendant filed written statement. It was contended, interalia, that 1^st defendant, Vivekananda and Thamminaidu are the sons of late sri S.Kaminaidu. The said Kaminaidu and Etcherla Appanna jointly purchased Ac.2.43 cents in S.No.168 of Patha Srikakulam, T.S.No.96 and an extent of Ac.1.75 cents in S.No.182-75, T.S.No.111 under a registered sale deed dated 27.07.1966 from Gudivada Venkata Varadaraju and others. They enjoyed the property jointly till 1984. S.Kaminaidu filed suit O.S.No.44 of 1984 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge‟s Court, Srikakulam for partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 18.08.1987. An advocate commissioner was appointed and a final decree was passed in I.A.No.195 of 1988 on 01.03.1990. The property was divided into A, B, C, D & E plots. „A‟ plot relates to Ac.2.43 cents in S.No.168. It was further divided into X, X1 and Y. X1 and Y denoted lots were allotted to Kaminaidu and the X denoted lot was allotted to Etcherla Appanna‟s branch. E.P.No.39 of 1991 was filed by the Kaminaidu under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC for delivery of „X1‟ and „Y‟ denoted lots and the delivery was affected on 25.09.1991. Thus, Kaminaidu and thereafter defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of property.

b) Appikonda Rajarao and others tried to trespass into the property of defendants (property allotted in O.S.No.44 of 1984). The 1^st defendant and other co-owners filed suit O.S.No.106 of 2006 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam seeking permanent injunction. The defendants in the said suit remained exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 13.10.2009. The 1^st defendant and other co-owners filed suit O.S.No.492 of 2006 against Srikakulam Municipality for declaration that the incorporation made by the authority in Town Survey register at relevant page with respect to T.S.No.96, corresponding old S.No.168 of Patha Srikakulam etc., and also for mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed on 09.02.2015. The plaintiffs have colluded with their vendors and brought into existence the sale deeds dated 25.04.2006 and 05.07.2013 and tried to interfere with the defendants‟ possession of the property and eventually prayed to dismiss the suit.

c) Along with written statement, copies of the sale deeds and other relevant documents referred in written statement were filed.

4. The defendants in the suit along with others filed suit O.S.No.14 of 2021 against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.40 of 2017, their vendors and another seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction. Both the suits are not clubbed. In O.S.No.40 of 2017 the trial was commenced. P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and the suit is coming up for further evidence. In O.S.No.14 of 2021, P.W.1 was examined and he marked certain documents.

5. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.190 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint as follows:

1. In para No.9 of the plaint add “that the decre