ORDER:

This Revision Petition is filed against the order and decree dated 06.12.2017 in I.A.No.1114 of 2011 in O.S.No.351 of 2009 on the file of the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, whereby, petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.1114 of 2011 to amend the plaint by incorporating certain facts and to add two more reliefs in a suit for relief of declaration and cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 05.10.2009 bearing document No.2952 of 2009 as void on the ground of fraud and coercion. Originally, suit was filed against three defendants, but later on, the 4th defendant got himself added as a party. Of course, in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, a pleading was taken that the property was sold in favour of the 4th defendant. The main contention of the petitioners is that the 2nd defendant executed a registered settlement deed dated 26.06.1993 in respect of plaint scheduled property in favour of both the petitioners keeping life interest with him with a vested remainder to the petitioners and handed over the registered settlement deed and also pattadar pass books in token of their title and that the said gift was duly accepted and the property was also in possession of the petitioners. But, the 1st defendant fraudulently got executed two registered sale deeds on 05.10.2009 by the 2nd defendant, one in respect of plaint scheduled property and the other in respect of some other property and therefore, the said registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant is not valid. During the pendency of the suit, 2nd defendant died on 07.04.2010, therefore, the petitioners contended that the settlement deed has conferred absolute title on them after the death of the 2nd defendant, as such, it is necessary to seek the amendments in the plaint.

3. It is pertinent to mention that the amendment sought by the petitioners is as follows:

“Amendment sought:

Para No.10(a): during pendency of the suit the 2nd Defendant Neerukonda Gopala Rao died testate on 07-04-2010. The 3rd Defendant is the wife of the 2nd Defendant and she is the sole legal heir of 2nd Defendant. As per the registered settlement deed dt.26.06.1993 under Doct.No.1407/1993 the Plaintiffs became absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. The said registered settlement deed was duly attested and registered and acted upon and the Plaintiffs have been continuing in possession with absolute rights and title in the plaint schedule property. As matter stands thus, in the month of August, 2010 when the 1st Defendant along with Koyyalamudi Venkata Ratnam and others trying to interfere with possession in the plaint schedule property the Plaintiffs filed a caveat petition against Koyyalamudi Venkata Ratnam on the file of this court and also on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kovvur. Later, Koyyalamudi Venkata Ratnam in the month of October filed a caveat against the Plaintiffs with all false allegations alleging that he purchased the plaint scheduled property from the 1st Defendant herein and he has been in possession of the same and the Plaintiffs are trying interfere with the possession. The Plaintiffs herein got issued a reply to the caveat of Koyyalamudi Venkata Ratnam. After receipt of the reply from the Plaintiffs the 1st Defendant and Koyyalamudi Venkata Ratnam and others taking advantage of non-granting of exparte injunction in favour of the Plaintiff’s they high handedly and illegally dispossessed the Plaintiffs in the month of December, 2010 by destroying the crop in the plaint schedule property and thereby caused loss to the Plaintiffs. The acts of the 1st defendant, Koyyalamudi Venkata Ratnam and others are nothing but illegal and high handed. The 1st Defendant and Koyyalamudi Venkata Ratnam have got muscle power and also political power in the village and they managed the Revenue Department and also the Police Department and thereby the Revenue Depart