proposed amendment to be made in the written statement. = This new plea was proposed by the defendants 3 to 5 with an oblique motive to take away the previous admission contained in the original written statement to the effect that there was no joint family by the date of the deceased father purchasing the suit property in the year 1985. Having regard to inconsistency with the original written statement and oblique motive for the petitioners/defendants 3 to 5, this Court is of the opinion that the lower Court rightly negatived permission to the petitioners to amend the written statement. I find no error or illegality in the order passed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.


CRP 1115 / 2013

CRPSR 6226 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KONTHAM VENKAT RAM REDDY, NALGONDA & 2 OTHERS  VSKONTHAM PADMA, NALGONDA & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : RAGHUVEER REDDYRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  NALGONDA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1115 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:
      This revision petition is sought to be filed questioning the order passed by the lower court refusing permission to the defendants 3 to 5 to amend their written statement in the suit.
The first respondent-plaintiff executed a document styled as gift settlement deed dated 20.02.1992 in favour of the first defendant/second respondent.  The plaintiff filed the suit inter alia for cancellation of the said gift settlement deed on the ground of the first defendant playing fraud on her in obtaining the said document.  The suit is filed in the year 2007.  
When it is a case of fraud said to have been played by the first defendant on the plaintiff, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to implead the defendants 3 to 5 who are her children and who were minors at the time of the disputed document dated 20.02.1992.  
The defendants 3 to 5/petitioners filed separate written statement contending inter alia that there was no joint family subsisting as on 25.04.1985 when their deceased father purchased the suit property, in respect of which the disputed gift settlement deed was executed. 
 It was reiterated by the defendants 3 to 5 in their written statement to the effect that it is false to allege that the suit schedule property was purchased with amounts of alleged joint family.  
With the above pleadings, the parties went for trial; and PW1 was examined in the lower Court and the matter was coming up for further evidence of the plaintiff.
At that stage in the year 2013, the defendants 3 to 5 filed the present petition for amendment of written statement for pleading that the defendants 3 to 5 and their father were constituting Hindu Joint Family and after his death also the defendants 3 to 5 and the plaintiff constituted Joint Hindu Family and that the suit property is their joint family property and that the plaintiff has no capacity and right to alienate the same by way of gift settlement which is void ab initio and is not binding.  
This new plea proposed to be included in the additional written statement runs contra to the plea contained in the original written statement to the effect that there was no joint family at all.  
It appears that the defendants 3 to 5 with a view to help the plaintiff with another ground of attack against the gift settlement deed, wanted the proposed amendment to be made in the written statement.  
This new plea was proposed by the defendants 3 to 5 with an oblique motive to take away the previous admission contained in the original written statement to the effect that there was no joint family by the date of the deceased father purchasing the suit property in the year 1985.  
Having regard to inconsistency with the original written statement and oblique motive for the petitioners/defendants 3 to 5, this Court is of the opinion that the lower Court rightly negatived permission to the petitioners to amend the written statement.  I find no error or illegality in the order passed by the lower appellate Court.
Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

____________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
20th March, 2013.
Dv/Rns

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.