← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRP/435/2017dismissed no costs

Kothapeta Madhu Raj v. Fouzia Yasmeen,

2017-07-21P Naveen Rao3 pages

Date :21.7.2017 Between :

Kothapeta Madhu Raj S/o late Balaji 60 yrs R/o H NO. 6-7-11, Raganna Darvaja Hanamakonda, Warangal and another Petitioner And Fauzia Yasmeen D/o Shababuddin R/o H No. 2-4-280, Gokul Nagar Hanamakonda, Warangal district Respondents The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Petitioners herein are plaintiffs. They filed O.S. No. 641 of 2014 praying to grant permanent injunction against defendant. In the said suit, they filed I.A. No. 673 of 2016 praying to amend the plaint and prayer sought in the suit. I.A. No. 673 of 2016 was considered by the trial Court and having found that the prayer sought therein, if granted would substantially change the nature of the suit and what was sought can be granted only consequential to relief of cancellation of the sale agreement and gift deed, the Court was not inclined to grant the relief and dismissed the I.A. The Court also noticed that the legal heirs were not impleaded. Hence, this revision. 2.

Learned counsel for petitioners sought to contend that the documents now sought to be brought on record would disclose that what is claimed by the defendant was not valid and that there cannot be an agreement of sale based on fictitious gift deed, therefore claim of the respondents that they acquired possession and made constructions is illegal. 3.

On a bare perusal of the affidavit filed in support of I.A., it is seen that it does not disclose the reasons in support of the prayer for amendment of the plaint in the suit.

4.

It is not in dispute that the suit was filed praying to grant decree of permanent injunction and what is now sought for by the plaintiff would substantially change the complexion of the suit. In substance, the amendment sought would amount converting the suit to that of recovery of possession. Therefore, I do not see any error committed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

______________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 21.07.2017 TVK

Date :21.7.2017