Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Chilakani Venkata Rao vs Ch. Lakshman Rao And Ors. on 22 February, 2006

Bollineni Srihari Rao vs Manukondu Ramadevi on 10 October, 2018

'It is well known that in a suit for partition all parties, who have a share in the properties to be partitioned, would be in the position of plaintiffs and can take all the pleas, which a plaintiff can take, and so their written statements also would be in the nature of plaints. So, if the revision-petitioner felt that the property alienated by the plaintiffs to Nataniel also has to be taken into consideration for deciding the question as to what are the properties that are to be partitioned between the parties, he should have mentioned that fact in the written statement. If he had not done so, he should have sought leave of the Court to amend his written statement for inclusion of the property alienated to Nataniel in the properties to be partitioned. As rightly observed by the trial Court, question of a defendant seeking leave to amend the plaint by inclusion of certain properties in the plaint schedule does not arise, as plaint contains the case of plaintiffs but not that of the defendant. So, it is only the plaintiff that can seek amendment of the plaint under Rule 17 of Order VI CPC. Therefore, I find no merits in this revision.' The ratio in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case as in that decision, this Court categorically held that in a suit for partition, the defendant cannot seek amendment of the schedule of the plaint and that if the defendant so desires, it is for the defendant to amend his own pleadings.
Telangana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Nagoji Srinivasa Rao vs Mokkapati Vijaya Lakshmi on 9 December, 2022

15. A plain reading of the provision indicates that it is permissible for a party to amend 'his' own pleadings, but a Court cannot permit a party to amend pleadings of other party and no exception is carved out in that regard to any kind of suit. The argument of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent about the option available to a defendant in such situation is sustainable. As rightly submitted, merely because the status of parties in a suit for partition is interchangeable insofar as the relief to be granted and to contest the suit; the same analogy cannot be drawn and applied to the matter of amending the pleadings. The view of this Court is fortified by the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, in Bollineni Srihari Rao v. Manukondu Ramadevi 4, wherein following the decisions in P. Mahalaskhmi and another v. Nagolu Ramanamma and others [2004(2) L.S. 156] and Chilakani Venkata Rao v. Ch. Lakshman Rao and Ors [2006(3) ALD 614], it was held that in a suit for partition the defendant cannot seek 4 MANU/HY/0320/2018 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3700 of 2019 8 amendment of the schedule of the plaint and that if the defendant so desires, it is for the defendant to amend his own pleadings.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chotu Miya, Shaik Faqruddin vs Mohammed Suleman,Goremiya on 17 November, 2023

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Nos.20 to 23 that the trial Court erred in dismissing the amendment petition, which is filed consequent to the orders dated 18.10.2016 passed in I.A.No.430 of 2015, wherein the petitioners were transposed as plaintiff Nos.20 to 23. It is settled law that in a partition suit, all the parties, who are interested in the partition are treated as plaintiffs. For instance, even as per the affidavit of the petitioners in the amendment petition and the original plaint, plaintiff Nos.1 to 19 and defendant Nos.1 to 32 are shown as shareholders in suit 1CIVIL APPEAL arising out of SLP (C) No. 28377 OF 2018) decided on 14 March, 2023 5 MGP,J Crp_6294_2018 schedule property. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision rendered by the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in Chilakani Venkata Rao v. Lakshman Rao and others 2, wherein it was observed as under:
Telangana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1