The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issues framed in a suit should reflect the material propositions of fact or law alleged by the parties, and the Court has the power to amend or strike out issues as necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. Mudagal, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court deleting issue No. 2 in O.S.No. 4013/2004, defendant No. 2 has preferred the above petition.

2. Respondent filed O.S.No. 4013/2004 against the petitioner and her husband (defendant No. 1) Narayana seeking declaration that he is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property and to put him back in peaceful possession of the said property and to restrain defendants or anybody claiming them from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and etc.

3. The subject matter of the suit was site bearing No. 58, Old No. 52/58, measuring 40 X 30 feet, Malagalu, Panchasheelanagar, Nagarabhavi Post, Bengaluru and house constructed thereon.

4. The plaintiff's case in brief was as follows: The suit property was allotted to him in 1974 by the Government under a scheme meant for siteless and houseless persons of the Weaker Sec. of the Society. Since then all along he was residing in the suit property till 25/12/2003. The defendants without any manner of right tried to trespass into the suit property. Therefore, he approached Vijayanagar Police on 25/12/2003. The defendants agreed to produce title documents before the Police. But instead of doing that, on 26/12/2003 they unlawfully dispossessed him. Thus, he sought decree for declaration of his title and redelivery of possession.

5. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the Trial Court.

6. Defendant No. 2 is the full sister of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 is the husband of defendant No. 2. For the reasons best known to the plaintiff, he did not disclose the relationship in the plaint, until defendant No. 2 disclosed the same in her written statement.

7. Initially, the suit was decreed ex-parte against the defendants. Later, on the petition of defendant No. 2 in Misc. Petition No. 100/2012, the exparte decree was set aside and matter was restored. Thereafter, she filed the written statement.

8. The gist of the written statement of defendant No. 2 is as follows: That the suit property was allotted to her by the Government in 1974. One Basavaraj attempted to trespass into her property. Since defendant No. 2 and her husband were illiterate and plaintiff was an Educated person working as an officer in LIC, they sought his help in the matter. The plaintiff taking advantage of their illiteracy and helplessness, tampered the name in the grant certificate from Mahadevamma to Mahadevaswamy to gulp the property. On that basis, he created further documents. The plaintiff was not at all in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the question of dispossessing him does not arise. Thus, she sought for dismissal of the suit.

9. On the basis of such pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: ISSUES

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit property?

3. Whether the defendants prove that plaintiff has fabricated and forged the Hakku Patra?

4. Whether the defendants further prove that government has granted Hakku Patra in her favour and she is in possession of the property?

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought?

6. What order or decree?"

10. On 26/6/2016, the parties adduced evidence. Even the arguments were addressed by the parties. During the course of the arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 8 under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC to delete issue No. 2. The only reason assigned in para 3 of the affidavit for deleting the said issue as stated is that there is no pleadings constituting issue No. 2 and therefore, the said issue is redundant and irrelevant.

11. Defendant No. 2 opposed the application on the ground that the application was highly belated one. She further contended that claim of the plaintiff for possession was based on his previous possession. Therefore, only the issue has to be amended to the ef