The petitioner is the legal representative of deceased

- plaintiff in O.S.No.18/2006 before the Principal Civil

Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, who has filed this writ

petition challenging an order dated 04.06.2021, by which

an application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the

plaint was rejected.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3

The plaintiff filed a suit for the following

reliefs:-

"(a) For a permanent injunction restraining the

defendants and their people from entering upon

the suit 'A' Schedule property and from carrying

out any construction works therein and from

cutting off the pipelines connected to the well

situated in the suit 'A' Schedule property and

from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and

enjoyment of the suit 'A' Schedule property in

any other manner.

(a a) For a declaration that the registered

settlement Deed dated 12-08-2005 executed by

the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant in

respect of the suit 'A' schedule property is got up,

make believe, fraudulent, false and void and has

not come into force and no right, title or interest

passed to the 2^nd defendant under the same since

the 1^st defendant himself had lost his right, title

and interest over the said property on account of

adverse possession by the plaintiffs and that the

plaintiffs have derived valid right, title and

interest therein by adverse possession."

4

4.

The suit was contested by the defendants, who

denied the case of the plaintiff and sought dismissal of the

suit.

5.

When the suit was listed for arguments, an

application was filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint to

introduce the following,

"(1) After Para III(5) insert the following Para:

"5(a). That the defendants in their written statement

have contended that the plaintiff ought to have

claimed a relief of declaration of his rights in order to

claim a permanent injunction. But in view of the

decisions of the various High Courts and the Supreme

Court that a plaintiff could not have used the plea of

Adverse possession as a sword, but only as a shield.

Therefore, the relief of declaration could not have

been claimed in the above suit by the plaintiff. All

these controversies were set to rest by the recent

decision of the Honorable Supreme Court dated

07-08-2019 that even a plaintiff can claim a

declaration of title by adverse possession and the

earlier decisions were declared as not correct. (As

reported in (2019) Scale 473). Hence, the plaintiffs

are now constrained to claim a declaration in respect

of their title over the suit 'A' schedule property by

adverse possession for which they are entitled. This

5

relief is not barred by time since the relief is claimed

within three years from the date of the above said

decision.

(2)

In Para IV, after the words 'produced by the

1^st defendant' insert the words "and on 07-08-2019

when the Honorable Supreme Court gave a decision

enabling a plaintiff also to claim a declaratory relief on

adverse possession".

(3)

In Para V, after the figures 'Rs. 25,000.00'

insert "Rs. 1,000.00" and strike off 'Rs. 26,000.00'

and substitute the same by "Rs. 27,000.00" and after

the figures 'Rs. 1,125.00' insert "+Rs. 25.00" and

strike off "Rs. 1,150.00" and substitute the same by

"1,175.00" and '24(b)' insert "24(d)"

(4)

In Para VI, after Para '(aa)' insert the

following Para "(ab). For a Declaration that the

plaintiffs have derived valid and absolute mooli right

over the following 'A' schedule property by adverse

possession and the right, title and interest of the

defendants over the same has been destroyed and

extinguished on account of such adverse possession.

(5)

At the end of Para VI, strike off the total 'Rs.

26,000.00'

and

substitute

the

same

by

"Rs.

27,000.00"."

6

6.

The Trial Court in terms of an order dated

04.06.2021 rejected the application as it was filed

belatedly and that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the

conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of