Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Coming to the relevant factual background:

(a). The revision petitioner in all the three revisions by name Smt. M. Seetharatnam is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.509 of 2012 and 2nd defendant in O.S.Nos.160 of 2009 & 507 of 2012 respectively. From the above, the suit of revision petitioner-plaintiff in O.S.No.509 of 2012 is first in point of time filed as O.S.No.633 of 2000 before its renumbering on transfer supra.

(b). She filed the suit O.S.No.633 of 2000 and same while pending on the file of 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, transferred to the file of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and is renumbered and pending as O.S.No.509 of 2012, for the reliefs of setting aside the registered sale deeds said to have been executed by her on 04.06.1998 and 05.06.1998, vide document Nos.1243 & 1244 of 1998, in favour of the 1st defendant-Siruvuri Venkata Rama Raju, whose wife is the 2nd defendant-Ammaji and the other defendants 3 & 4 are by names Smt. M. Ramadevi and Smt. S. Padmavatamma. It is alleging in the plaint that said sale deeds are null and void, for not supported by consideration and having been obtained by fraud and coercion.

6(b)(xxix). In Molli Eswara Rao vs. Kurcha Chandra Rao , it was held by this court that admittedly, the respondent herein filed the present application after commencement of trial and according to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., it is incumbent and obligatory on the part of the person applying to show that despite exercising due diligence, such application could not be filed before commencement of trial.

6(b)(xxx). In J.Yadagiri Reddy and others vs. J.Hemalatha and others , also this Court observed that even in cases where an application for amendment of plaint is filed after commencement of trial, the amendment should be allowed if the amendment sought does not require any evidence to be led specifically or additionally by either of the parties to decide the rights of the parties as the object of the Court should be not to punish a party for any mistake committed in filling the plaint initially. There also in the suit for declaration of sale deeds are null and void and amendment sought for as not binding on plaintiff which is about nine years after filing of suit and long after commencement of trial and the suit was almost at fagend of trial.

indicative in these districts as usufructuary mortgage and sought for dismissal.

12. The observation of the lower Court from the pleadings and referring to Revajetu Builders, Surendra Kumar Sharma, T.Raja Reddy, North Eastern Railway Administration, Usha Devi and Rajesh Kumar Agarwal supra, was that the basic principles from the expressions to consider is whether the amendment is bonafide or malafide and leads to any injustice and prejudice to other side, as seen from the proposed amendment the potentiality of prejudice or injustice likely to be caused to other side is high for it would expunge the admission made by the plaintiff of the mortgage deeds are simple and deprive defendants to take it as defence therefrom and thereby there are no bonafides and that too the petition for amendment of plaint filed 15 years of the suit filed and the Khararunama factum pleaded was for the first time in the proposed amendment in seeking the relief of declaration of sale deeds as null and void and the supine indifference is not explained and thereby not a fit case to permit amendment.

16. No doubt if the mortgage deeds contain a recital of usufructuary, within the scope of Sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act from the evidence let in and to be let in on record, the trail Court can consider in deciding the lis by appreciation of entire evidence on record irrespective of who let in what evidence for entire matter at large to arrive at the truth and needless to say from the position of law referred above from several expressions of an admission even can be explained away though cannot be permitted to withdraw and introduce a mutually inconsistent new version. Thus so far as the 2 suits covered by mortgage concerned so also in the suit for cancellation of or declaring the two sale deeds as null and void and not binding, the plea sought in relation to the amendment of simple mortgage admission into usufructuary mortgage concerned there is nothing to permit for this Court while sitting in revision but for clarifying the legal position from what is covered by the orders of the lower Court in giving disposal of the revisions in this regard and to that extent but for permitting amendments in relation to the Khararunama.