Ultimately, a plaintiff must seek possession alongside declaration claims when faced with a dispute, and amendments aligned with evidence from a commissioner's report should be allowed by the trial court.

JUDGMENT

The OP(C) No. 2579 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the dismissal of his application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

2.The O.P (C) No. 2973 of 2024 filed by the same plaintiff for challenging the dismissal of his application filed under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC .

3.O.P (C) No. 2840/2024 filed by the very same plaintiff for rejection of his application by the same court on the I.A No.34 of 2024 under Order XI Rule 12 of CPC for summoning the documents from defendant No.1 to 3 and defendant No.14.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs in all three cases, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Adv. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.13 and Adv. T. Rajeev, the learned counsel for respondent No.14.

5. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that he has filed the suit for declaration/injunction in O.S No.44/2020, now pending on the files of the 1^st Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananathapuram. The suit was initially filed seeking a mandatory injunction in addition to the prayer for declaration and injunction. Subsequently, the plaint was amended, and a commissioner was appointed by the Court. The Commissioner filed a report mentioning the measurement of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint for the change of measurement of the lands and also seeking possession from the defendants apart from other reliefs.

6.The trial court dismissed the interlocutory application I.A No.28 of 2024 dated 13.09.2024, for amendment, hence the petitioner/plaintiff filed the petition.

7.The further case of the plaintiff in the other two cases is that he has filed an application under Order XI Rule 12 and Order XI and Rule 14 of CPC, for summoning the documents from defendant No.1 to 3 and defendant No.14, which came to the dismissed, hence he has filed the other two original petitions for challenging the same.

8.The counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration/injunction initially. Subsequently, a Commissioner was appointed, who filed a report; thereafter, he got amended the pleadings of the suit. Subsequently, a second Commissioner has been appointed, where the Commissioner inspected the spot and filed the report stating that the extent of land is 39.10 Ares, whereas earlier the suit was filed for the property measuring 38.15 Ares. Therefore, when the suit for declaration is filed, he has not properly measured the property, and as per the document, the sale deed of Aboobacker, who is the predecessor of the title of the said property, purchased the property in the years 1945 and 1947 from his vendor, and the said property is given for the National Extension Service project (NESP). Now the measurement differs from the description of the scheduled property and the Commissioner report, therefore he wants to amend the same. He further argued that defendant No.14 was in possession of the property, and the same was allotted to defendant No.14 by the State Government for a project. Therefore, the possessions are with the defendants; hence, plaintiff is required to seek an amendment for the prayer for the possession of the property, apart from evicting the defendants or persons claiming under the defendant in the scheduled property. Therefore, the amendment will not change the nature of the suit except for