ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioners-defendants is directed against the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 in O.S.No.2054/2022 on the file of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-26), Bengaluru (for short 'trial Court') passed on I.A.No.II, whereby the application (I.A.No.II) filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the respondent-

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The petitioners-defendants have entered appearance and filed the written statement and are contesting the suit. In the said suit, the petitioners-defendants filed an application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 25.05.2022 and modified by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 passed in MFA.No.5009/2022. Subsequently, respondent-plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by adding additional prayers and corresponding pleadings to the body of the plaint. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners-defendants, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order by allowing the application (I.A.No.II). Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners are before this Court, by way of present petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order and the proposed amendment sought for by the respondent-plaintiff, will indicate that the proposed amendment does not in any way change or alter the nature of the suit. The trial Court has correctly and properly appreciated the entire material on record and has recorded correct finding that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and held as under:

"7. Point No.1:- It is the specific claim of the applicant/plaintiff that though initially she had filed this suit for bare injunction, but during the pendency of the above case, the defendants without having any right, title or interest over schedule property, trespassed over the same and put up the offending construction illegally in order to knock off the schedule property which exclusively belongs to her. It is her further claim that the defendants are claiming their right over the schedule property falsely on the strength of the disputed sale deed dated 25.08.1952 allegedly executed by Venkatappa in favour of Nadakeerappa which is a sham document and even the subsequent sale deed of 1968 executed by Nadakeerappa in favour of Narayanappa is also a sham document which would not confer any legal right, title or possession over the said purchasers or the present defendants and therefore those documents are required to be declared as null and void and not binding on her for which the pleadings are required to be amended. It is her further claim that so-called vendors of the defendants had no absolute right, title or interest over the schedule property to alienate the same and the execution of those sale deeds came to the knowledge of this plaintiff only during pendency of MFA No.5009/2022 and after coming to know of those facts she has immediately come up with the present IA seeking amendment. She has also specifically alleged that the defendants are falsely claiming their right over Sy.No.7/17 which is not at all in existence and with regard to these facts also the pleadings are required to be amended.

8. Per contra the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have seriously opposed the IA denying the grounds urged by the plaintiff and their main contention is that when the grandfather of the plaintiff Venkatappa himself had executed the sale deed dated 25.08.1952 alienating the schedule property in favour