ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.11.2022 allowing I.A.No.216 of 2022 in O.S.No.9 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Dhone filed by the 1st defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement.

2. The plaintiffs No.1 to 5 filed the suit against the defendants No.1 and 2 for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the calling plaint schedule property and recovery of possession of the properties from the defendant.

Item No.1. Ac.8.32 cents out of Ac.11.32 cents in Sy.No.248 in Rahimanpuram Village.

Item No.2. Ac.1.20 cents out of Ac.6.30 cents in Sy.No.178 in Rahimanpuram Village.

Item No.3. Ac.2.03 cents out of Ac.6.30 cents in Sy.No.6/A in R. Kothapalli Village Item No.4. Ac.3.52 cents out of Ac.6.30 cents in Sy.No.126/B inR. Kothapalli Village.

Item No.5. (Not found in the copy filed before this Court).

All items No.1 to 5 are situated at Revenue Division of Nandyal, Kurnool District.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is briefly as follows:

The 1st plaintiff is the mother of the plaintiffs No.2 to 5. Sri. Y.B.

Chowdaiah is the father of Sri. Y.B. Somanna and the 1st defendant. The 1st plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the children of the Y.B. Somanna. Y.B. Chowdaiah had an oral partition with his children and the plaint schedule properties were allotted to Y. B. Somanna in that division. Since then, all properties of plaint schedule were enjoyed by Y.B. Somanna. After his death, the plaintiffs succeeded to the same and enjoyed them. However, about six years before filing of the suit, the 1st defendant high handedly occupied the plaint schedule lands without any manner of right by creating fictious documents, like pattadar passbooks etc., by misrepresenting into the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs got issued registered legal notices to defendants No.1 and 2 on 17.05.2013, but the defendants did not vacate the lands, nor did they give reply to the notice. Again on 09.11.2013, the plaintiffs got issued another legal notice demanding to vacate the plaint schedule lands. A reply was given on 18.12.2013 by the defendants, to the legal notice dated 09.11.2013. In the reply notice they alleged that the schedule lands were given to the 1st defendant by Y.B. Somanna under an agreement of gift.

4. The 1st defendant filed written statement with averments briefly as follows:

The relationship is admitted. Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.11.32 cents which was self-acquired property of Y.B. Chowdaiah and not the ancestral property. Y.B. Chowdaiah died about 38 years ago leaving behind Y.B. Somanna and the 1st defendant. The averments that there was an oral division of properties between the Y.B. Chowdaiah and his children is false. The averment that Y.B. Somanna was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties till his death on 29.12.1999 is false. It is also false that the plaintiffs succeeded to him and they were in possession and enjoyment of the properties and they were high handedly dispossessed by the 1st defendant. The contents of the reply legal notice dated 18.12.2013 are correct. Y.B. Chowdaiah got about Ac.35 of ancestral landed property. He purchased Ac.11.32 cents in item no.1 of the plaint schedule property and it is inself-acquired property. It is only shown asAc.8.32 cents. Till the death of the Y.B. Chowdaiah, the 1st defendant, her father and brother were jointly enjoying the entire property. After the death of Y.B. Chowdaiah, the 1st defendant demanded her brother Y.B. Somanna to give some property out of the total joint family property. Accordingly, due to love and affection and towards her legitimate share, and as pasupukunkuma to her, Y.B. Somanna gave her properties and executed an agreement of gift deed dated 05.08.1987 on a stamped paper and delivered the properties on the same day. The 1st defendant accepted the same. Th