APHC010226232024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1108/2024 Between:

Chakkapalli Satyvathi ...PETITIONER AND Haridasula Chakradhara Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. A S C BOSE

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.205 of 2021 in O.S.No.100 of 2016 by the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram, whereby, the trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory application filed Under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ―C.P.C.‖) to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as petitioner and defendants, as arrayed before the Trial Court in I.A.No.205 of 2021.

3) The petitioner-plaintiff initially filed O.S.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram against the respondents herein for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property contending that she is the owner of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.2.45 cents of land in R.S.No.32 of Uttarakanchi village. Originally, the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of her husband. They are having two sons by names Sanyasi Raju and Apparao. Her husband and her two sons have partitioned the plaint schedule property in the year 1995 and in the said partition, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of her sons and each of them has taken possession of the property that fell to their share, ever since they were enjoying the property without interruption from any person, by paying taxes to the Government. Her sons names are also mutated in all the revenue records in respect of the properties that fell to their share and they have also got issued Pattadar pass books in their favour. Her sons Sanyasi Raju and Apparao, out of the love and affection, have executed registered gift deeds in respect of the property that fell to their share in her favour on 16.09.2009. Government also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her name.

4) The respondents herein, who are having land in the same survey number of Uttarkanchi Village, requested the petitioner herein to sell the plaint schedule property in the year 2015, for which she refused. Due to the same, the respondents having developed grudge on the petitioner, in order to grab suit property, have got issued a registered legal notice dated 11.04.2016 by creating an agreement of sale deed dated 09.06.1997 as if her husband has agreed to sell Ac.2.60 cents of land. On verification, she came to know that the respondents have created the alleged agreement of sale from the person who has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.100 of 2016, wherein the trial Court has granted temporary injunction vide order dated 30.05.2016 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2016 restraining the respondents herein from interfering with her peaceful possession, aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.501 of 2016 on the file of this Court, and the same was allowed vide orders dated 12.07.2016. Under the guise of the said order, the respondents herein illegally trespassed in to the suit schedule property, therefore, the petitioner herein was constrained to filed I.A.No.205 of 2021 under Order VI Rule of C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.

5) When the present revision came up for admission on

10.05.2024, this Court has passed the following interim