Amendments that change the nature of a suit are impermissible, especially when sought at a late stage of proceedings.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 27.02.2024, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy in I.A.No.454 of 2023 in OS.No.75 of 2010

2. Heard Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondents, though Sri Ch.Ravinder Babu, advocate, entered appearance for respondent No.1.

3. The revision petitioner is defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.2 in the suit.

4. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

5. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of Open Plot bearing Municipality No.88, admeasuring 200 square yards in Sy.Nos.1128 and 1129 of Wanaparthy Town and Municipality, claiming that he has got half share in the said schedule of property. In the plaint, the plaintiff averred that defendant No.1 is his brother; that their father purchased the suit schedule property under registered document No.487/1979, dated 03.03.1979; that there was division of agricultural properties between his father, defendant No.1 and himself by way of oral agreement, as per which his father kept the suit schedule property for himself and he expired in the year 2000 leaving behind himself and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs; that defendant No.1 has alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 though the plaintiff requested defendant No.1 for partition. Hence, the suit.

6. Defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the material averments made in the plaint, however, contended that the suit schedule property was purchased by their father under registered sale deed and pursuant to oral arrangement between the family members, their father kept the suit schedule property for himself. It was further averred that the plaintiff has executed relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.1 relinquishing his rights over the suit schedule property by taking money and therefore, defendant No.1, being the absolute owner of the property, sold the same to defendant No.2 under registered sale deed for valuable consideration and as such, the suit is not maintainable.

7. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed application in I.A.No.454 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the relief in the suit from declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property to that of partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule property. In the affidavit filed accompanying the said application, the plaintiff averred that due to oversight, he filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, however, as per the pleadings in the plaint as well as the written statement filed by defendant No.1, the suit schedule property was purchased by their father by way of registered sale deed and he died intestate without partition of the said property and therefore, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have equal share in the suit schedule property. It was further averred that defendant No.1 alienated the entire suit schedule property to defendant No.2, without the knowledge of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff came to know the said fact and questioned, there was no response from defendant No.1 and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and subsequently, the applicati