Pre-trial applications for amendment of a plaint to include a prayer for declaration of title should be allowed liberally, provided they do not cause prejudice to the defendant, as the suit for recovery of possession based on title is governed by the 12-year limitation period.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed in IA.No.167 of 2020 in O.S.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the prayer in the plaint by adding the prayer of declaration of title as well as in relevant places in the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri S.Malla Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The suit was originally filed by plaintiff No.1 and during the pendency of the suit, she expired, as such, plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 were impleaded as her legal representatives in the suit.

5. The facts of the case, in brief, required for adjudication of the present Revision Petition are that plaintiff No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2018 for recovery of possession, damages and perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their respective written statements. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC vide I.A.No.167 of 2020 for amendment of prayer in the plaint.

6. The case of plaintiff No.1, as averred in the application, is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from one Anreddy Janga Reddy through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2542 of 1980, dated 05.11.1980; that her vendor purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed, dated 01.07.1958, bearing document No.962 of 1958, from J.Narsimloo Mudiraj, M.Kareemullah and M.Sharfuddin; that her vendor, after giving notice under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad on 17.06.1980, executed the sale deed in her favour and thus, she became lawful owner of the suit schedule property and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

6.1. While so, when one Bansilal and S.K.Ahmed started interfering with her possession of the suit schedule property, she filed a suit in O.S.No.403 of 2005 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for permanent injunction restraining the said persons and the said suit was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006. When the things stood thus, on 10.02.2017, she received notice with grounds of appeal in CMA.No.22 of 2017 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, through which she came to know that defendant No.1 herein filed I.A.No.530 of 2015 in O.S.No.791 of 2015 seeking temporary injunction against her and defendant No.2 herein and two others, wherein defendant No.1 herein averred that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.1085 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013 executed by one Bachu Praveen Kumar, followed by release deed dated 07.08.2014 executed by P.Prashanthi Reddy, however, the said I.A was dismissed.

6.2. That earlier, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 02.05.2013 to defendant