ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners – plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order date 04.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.621 of 2018 in O.S.No.167 of 2012 by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory application filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") to amend the plaint.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as plaintiffs and defendants, as arrayed before the Trial Court in I.A.No.621 of 2018 in O.S.No.167 of 2012.

3) Initially, one Mutham Chetty Muneiaha, who is the husband of petitioner No.2, and father of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 filed suit O.S.No.167 of 2012 for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. After death of said Mutham Chetty Muneiaha, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record vide orders passed in I.A.No.379 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019 as plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. After examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, the deceased Mutham Chetty Muneiaha secured some documents from the public authorities about correct genealogy instead of mentioned in the plaint and filed an application in the year 2018 to receive those documents and to amend the plaint as it is necessary to bring true facts on record based on public documents. As the suit was filed way back in 2012, the trial Court dismissed the application I.A.No.621 of 2018 seeking amendment on the ground that the evidence was adduced basing on the earlier pleadings of the both the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners – plaintiffs.

4) When the matter listed for hearing, on 21.03.2025 this Court passed the following interim order.

"…………In view of the rival contentions, post after two (02) weeks. Till then, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.167 of 2012 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati"]

5) Thereafter, the said interim order has been extended from time to time.

6) Respondent No.6 filed counter contended that the plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.167 of 2012 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction claiming ownership over Ac.2.47 cents in Sy.No.330 of Vemuru Village. The case of the plaintiffs is based on a specific genealogy and a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1976 allegedly executed by Govindaswamy in favour of their ancestor Muthamsetty Subbaiah. After filing the suit, the petitioners filed an amendment vide I.A.No.630 of 2017, wherein they themselves replaced the earlier genealogy with a second version, adding new names, modifying family branches, and altering the claimed source of title. This amendment was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 13.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioners were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and they were subjected to extensive cross- examination and there are contradictions between the earlier pleading and oral testimony.

7) After cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, the petitioners - plaintiffs suddenly claimed that they had discovered "correct genealogy" and "new documents" and filed I.A. 621 of 2018 seeking to delete the entire earlier genealogy and replace it with a third genealogy, which cannot be allowed. By virtue of the proposed amendment, the petitioners seek to change their entire flow of title and source of ownership.

8) Originally, the suit was based solely on a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1976 purportedly executed by one Govindaswamy in favour of the Muthansetty Subbaiah. The petitioners conducted their entire case, evidence, and cross-examination on this foundational fact. Now, however, they claim that the suit schedule property is ancestral joint family property devolving from several generations, thereby discarding their earlier admitted basis of title. This sudden shift transforms the nature of the suit from one based on a sale deed to one based on ancestr