A party must provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish ownership before seeking relief for partition, and amendments changing the nature of the suit are not permissible at a late stage.

1. This matter is heard in part earlier. This Court also directed the parties to place the record before the Court whether earlier application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has attained its finality or not.

2. The counsel appearing for the appellant would submits that no such appeal is filed. The counsel appearing for the respondents brought to notice of this Court that writ petition was filed and the same was dismissed on the ground that amendment sought is a new NC: 2024:KHC:26209 RSA No. 486 of 2022 prayer for partition and it would change the entire complexion of the suit.

3. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel for respondents and also the present R.S.A is filed challenging the judgment and decree of Trial Court in dismissing the suit for the relief of partition. The main contention of the appellant before the Trial Court that there was a partition and in terms of the partition, he become the absolute owner of the property and he fails to establish the same. Hence the Trial Court dismissed the suit answering the issues as negative.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.198/2014 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the same in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has not made out any case to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and none of the document discloses that title of the appellant and in the absence of any title, question of granting the relief of declaration does not arise and also an observation is made NC: 2024:KHC:26209 RSA No. 486 of 2022 that revenue document also show the exclusive name of his father or plaintiff.

5. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding of both the Courts, present second appeal is filed. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant even though no document discloses to show that there was a partition and he become the absolute owner of the property and both the Courts fails to invoke Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC to grant the relief of partition which is lesser relief than the declaration of ownership and ought to have granted the relief of partition, when there is no material for the relief of partition.

6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that when the relief is sought for declaration and injunction, unless the title deeds are produced, no question of granting the relief of declaration. Both the Courts have re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. NC: 2024:KHC:26209 RSA No. 486 of 2022

7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that both the Courts ought to have invoked Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC to grant the relief of partition and admittedly an application is filed before the Trial Court for the relief of amendment by filing an application and the same came to be rejected and the same is also challenged before this Court in W.P.No.38317/2012 and this Court also affirming the order of the Trial Court, in paragraph No.3 made an observation that the suit was filed in the year 2003 and after 9 years, an application has been filed and what is sought to be amended is also totally new prayer of partition and it changes the entire complexion of the suit. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the same. When the relief of partition, sought by filing an application and the prayer was rejected and the same has been affirmed by this Court in the writ petition. Now, question of invoking Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC also does not arise. This Court also while rejecting earlier, made an observation that it amounts to changing of nature of the suit and the same amounts to a NC: 2024:KHC:26209 RSA No. 486 of 2022 new complexion. When such being the case, question of invoking Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC also does not arise and even this Court made an observation while dismissing the writ petition itself in 2012 that the petitione