Pathipati Butchaiah v. Smt. Baji Sarada

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRP.No.4905 of 2014 ORDER :

This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.30.10.2014 in I.A.No.776 of 2014 in O.S.No.391 of 2011 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

2.

The petitioners herein are defendants in the above suit.

3.

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for a perpetual injunction restraining petitioners from interfering with her alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

4. In the plaint, she alleged that her husband, under an agreement of sale dt.15.05.1990 executed by the sons of the original pattadar of property by name Gandluri Venkata Rama Rao, was conveyed title and delivered possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that her husband died on 05.09.2006 and thereafter she succeeded to the property, but the petitioners, without having any right or interest in the suit schedule property, were attempting to dispossess her. 5.

Written statement was filed by petitioners opposing the suit claim and denying the title as well as the

possession by the respondent.

6.

After framing of issues, the trial was concluded; and the matter was posted for arguments.

7.

At that stage, the respondent filed I.A.No.776 of 2014 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint by also seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule property. For the first time, in the said application she stated that subsequent to the agreement of sale dt.15.05.1990, her vendors had also executed a valid registered sale deed in her favour, and the same had been marked as an exhibit. She contended that since petitioners were disputing her title, ownership and possession and some facts were elicited in the evidence of DW.2 with regard to the original ownership of the property, it is just and necessary to permit her to amend the plaint by seeking relief of declaration of title.

8. The said application was opposed by petitioners who contended that the title as well as possession of respondent had been disputed by them ever since the filing of written statement, and the said application has been filed belatedly after the trial has commenced, and therefore, the application should be dismissed. It was specifically pointed out that in the plaint there are no pleadings about the registered sale deed obtained by respondent from the vendors of her husband and the agreement of sale dt.15.05.1990.

9. By order dt.30.10.2014, the Court below allowed the said I.A. It held that by the time of filing of suit, the respondent had not obtained the sale deed Ex.A.3 from the vendors of her husband and therefore this was not disclosed in the plaint, and this fact cannot be of any advantage to petitioners. It further held that when the title of respondent is denied, she is entitled to seek a relief of declaration of title, and the petitioners have not shown how it causes injustice to them. It also held that it would be unjust to drive the respondent to a separate suit, which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

10.

Challenging the same, the present Revision is filed.

11. Heard the counsel for petitioners, Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy;

and Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, counsel for respondent.

12. The counsel for petitioners contended that since the respondent in her plaint had only spoken about the agreement of sale dt.15.05.1990 executed in favour of her husband and did not take any plea about the execution of any sale deed in her favour by the vendors under the said agreement of sale, and since no title passes under an agreement of sale, it would not be proper to permit the respondent to raise a plea about her title and also to permit her to seek the relief of declaration of title.

13.

I find considerable force in this contention of the counsel for petitioners.

14.

The counsel for respondent has also admitted that, as of now, the plea of purchase of the property by respondent from the vendors under the agreement of sale dt.15.05.1990 is not there in the plaint, although the said fact appears to have been brought on record during the evidence of respondent and is also mentioned in para.3 in I.A.No.776 of 2014.

15. It is settled law that no amount of evidence can be looked into without a pleading. In the absence of any pleading by the respondent in her plaint about the acquisition of title under a registered sale deed Ex.A.3 executed by the vendors under the agreement of sale dt.15.05.1990, no useful purpose would be served by permitting the respondent to seek the relief of declaration of title in addition to the plea of perpetual injunction. This is because it is settled law that title does not pass under an agreement of sale.

16. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the court below erred in allowing I.A.No.776 of 2014. 17.

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order dt.30.10.2014 in I.A.No.776 of 2014 in O.S.No.391 of 2011 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam is set aside. No order as to costs.

18.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Revision shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 13.08.2015 Ndr/*