ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful plaintiffs is directed against the orders dated 09.03.2021, of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, dismissing I.A.No.956 of 2009 in OS.No.83 of 2006 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to amend the plaint.

2. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri Venkateswarlu Chakilam, learned counsel for respondents/defendant Nos.1, 4 & 6 to 9.

Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 died.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The defendants filed written statement alleging that they purchased Ac.0.34 cents orally from the father of plaintiffs 1 to 4. In fact, the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 sold Ac.0.03 cents only to the defendants, i.e., E F G H marked site where they raised two portioned midde and hut. After filing of the suit, at the instance of the defendants, commissioner was appointed in order to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The defendants temporarily arranged open bathrooms which are marked G H I J marked Karra Thotlu, M marked Cement tub, KL marked heaps of Kankara and W X Y Z marked base by the commissioner in his plan. All the above structures are to be removed from the plaint schedule site. After the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 sold land in piecemeal, the remaining extent of land is Ac.0.30 cents. However, the on measurement, the commissioner found Ac.0.43 cents instead of Ac.0.30 cents. Since the defendants are claiming their right over plaint schedule property by oral purchase, in order to adjudicate the suit properly and effectively and to avoid future complications, it is essential to declare the rights of the plaintiffs over the schedule property after removing the temporary structures made by the defendants by granting mandatory injunction. Hence, it has become necessary to seek amendments in the plaint. By the proposed amendments, the nature of the suit will not be changed and further they would not cause any prejudice to the defendants.

(b) The proposed amendments sought for by the plaintiffs are as follows:

“1. Add Para 6(A), after para 6 before the same, Hence the Suit.

It is submitted that the Defendants are contending that they purchased the Plaint Schedule Property orally from the father of Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the husband of 5th defendant i.e., from Karreduula Kota Reddy. In fact, late Karreddula Kota Reddy, sold Ac.0.03 cents of site only. Further, the defendants are contending that they in turn sold Ac.0.06 cents of site to others. Further in order to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of schedule land, the Defendants temporarily arranged commissioner’s plan marked GH marked open bath rooms, IJ marked Karra Thotlu, M marked cement Tub, K L marked heaps of Kankara and W X Y Z marked basement in the plaint schedule site. All these are arranged temporarily by the Defendants after filing the suit. They have to be removed from the plaint schedule site. It is further submitted that after selling the land in piecemeal by the father of plaintiffs 1 to 4 to various persons, on physical verification, the plaintiffs mentioned the extent of land as Ac.0.30 cents approximately. But when it was measured it came to Ac.0.43 cents including the site sold to the defendants. After deducting Ac.0.04 cents site it will be Ac.0.40 cents. So, as an abundant caution and to adjudicate the suit property and effectively and to avoid future complications, the plaintiffs are also filing the suit for declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property and consequentially for vacant possession of it after removing the above said structures which are temp