Amendments to pleadings must not alter the fundamental nature of the case or prejudice the opposing party; such amendments can be disallowed if they distort the original claims.

ORDER :

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Since the issue involved in both the revisions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Aggrieved by the docket orders dated 18.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.248 of 2017 in O.S.No.115 of 2023 (old O.S.No.12 of 2014) and I.A.No.251 of 2017 in O.S.No.114 of 2023 (old O.S.No.10 of 2014) by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandimyadaram, both the revisions have been preferred by the petitioners-defendant Nos.11,12 and 14.

3. Heard Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendant Nos.11, 12 and 14 and Sri G.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent-plaintiff.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in C.R.P.No.4230 of 2024 are discussed hereunder.

5. The 1^st respondent-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.115 of 2023 (old O.S.No.12 of 2014) seeking perpetual injunction with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of Acs.0-34 guntas, out of total extent of Ac.13-24 Guntas in Sy.No.113, situated at Erraguntapalli Village under Bommareddypalli revenue Village of Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar District bounded by East: Land of Shatrajula Pochmallu and others; West: Land of Adepu Buchaiah and others; North: Land of Kotha Mohan and others and South: Land of Odnala Bhumaiah and others. Upon receiving summons in the suit, the revision petitioners herein have filed written statements disputing the existence of the suit schedule property on the ground that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are not correct.

6. It is the specific case of the revision petitioners that the vendors of the plaintiff did not have ownership and possession over single gunta of land in Survey No.113, which had total extent of Ac.13-24 guntas. A copy of the written statement produced before this Court shows that there are pleadings about non- existence of the plaint schedule land. As per the plaint schedule, the vendor of the 1st respondent is not owner of single gunta of land in Survey No.113 when he executed registered sale deed vide document No.3303 of 2011, dated 24.11.2011 in favour of the 1^st respondent. Relevant pleadings are extracted hereunder:

“Whatever the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed obtained by the plaintiff and another Kotha Mohan are totally not identifiable and there were no boundaries are in existence for the land of Ac.1-28 gts Involved in the registered sale deed. More over the so called vender by name Baddam Raji Reddy had no single gunta of land out of the Suit Sy.No. 113 to sell land to the plaintiff and another person by name Kotha Mohan.

Originally the total extant of Sy.No.113 is Ac.13-24 guntas. Out of Ac.13-24 guntas of land, the father of plaintiff’s Vendor by name B. Kotaiah and his brother Venkat Reddy and his Sister Katnapalli Rajamma are having three equal shares out of above said land.

In turn Akarapu Raji Reddy sold an extant of Ac.01-15 gts to One Devi Ramaiah, an extent of Ac.1-15 gts to one Devi Pochaiah, and Ac.1-15 gts to Devi Lachaiah and one Bore Lingaiah purchased an extant of Ac.0-16 gts. Out of the share land of Katnapalli Rajamma, she sold Ac.1-05 gts of land to one Medi Pochaiah and Medi Rajaiah under simple sale deed long back and it was validated under ROR Act by settling their respective extents. Further, Katnapalli Rajamma has given Ac.1-10 gts of land to one Kallem Thirupathi Reddy, who is the own son-in-law of Katnapalli Rajamma, in turn Kallem Thirupathi Reddy sold