Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Yerramsetti Ramesh Kumar vs Narayanaswamy & Sons And on 11 March, 2026
APHC010559202025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2871 of 2025
Between:
1. YERRAMSETTI RAMESH KUMAR, S/O LATE SURI BABU,
AGED 53 YEARS, OCC-CULTIVATION R/O JONNAGUDI,
VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND MUNICIPALITY.
2. YERRAMSETTI PRASHANTH, S/O LATE SYAMASUNDARA
RAO, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O JONNAGUDI, VIZIANAGARAM
TOWN AND MUNICIPALITY.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SOMU SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE ADEPPADU, AGED
ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O HOUSE NO.66/2,
RELLI VEEDHI, S.C.COLONY, GURLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT.
2. MOHAMMED DANISH, S/O LATE HAJJI SATTAR AHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO.
16-18/1-6, KORADAVEEDHI, VIZINAGARAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that
in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court
may be pleased to set aside the order dated 03.01.2025 in I.A.No.618
of 2024 in O.S.No.368 of 2016 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Vizianagaram.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO
2
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the suit and respondents
herein are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.618 of 2024
in O.S.No.368 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Vizianagaram, which was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, in
this order, the parties will be referred to, as per their array in the suit.
2. The plaintiffs herein filed an application I.A.No.618 of 2024 in
O.S.No.368 of 2016 of the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Vizianagaram, under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint as
under:
“….to amend the plaint as mentioned below to delete item
no.2 of the plaint schedule:
a. to amend the extent of item 1 as Ac.3.48 cents;
b. and consequently permit us to amend the plaint schedule
and file neat copy of the schedule and also;
c. to delete the portion of para III(d) “The plaintiffs learnt the
Adangals for the plaint schedule…….. in respect of the
entire extent of land covered by S.no.57/2”; (till the end of
that para)
d. to add the following after para III(e);
III(f) The plaintiffs got surveyed the lands in S.no.57 and 56
with reference to documents of plaintiffs and defendants, got
prepared plan, drawn to scale and the same is filed here with.
4
After such got prepared by a qualified surveyor, who was
also close relative to us by name Y.Srinivasa Rao, appraised
us that there exists a bund running from North to South
dividing the land in our physical possession and enjoyment is
on Western side and its measuring Ac.3.48 Cents and that
the land on the Eastern side measuring Ac.1.52 Cents being
part of 57/1 and that the land on the further east thereof is
covered by S.no.57/2 and that its extent is Ac.0.94 Cents and
where as the land S.no.56 was converted into layout, and
such land was sold by 1st defendant to 3rd parties, who in turn
formed layout and sold.
(g) The land and property acquired by 2nd defendant is
covered by three documents 1) Sale deed dated 13.02.2007
bearing doct.no.509/07, he acquired Ac.1.42 Cents covered
by S.no.57/1. 2) Sale deed dated 13.02.2007 bearing
doct.no.110/07, he acquired Ac.0.10 Cents covered by
S.no.57/1 and Ac.0.94 Cents in S.no.57/2. The lands
covered by these two documents were sold by 2nd defendant
to Adon Infra Projects on 03.04.2019 under
doct.no.1132/2019 i.e., after filing of this suit, in which the
western boundary is shown as that of the lands of
grandmother Y.Simhachalam and further shown the land
covered in S.no.56, being held by DVR Infra Projects is on
the eastern side, thus it is clear that the land shown in the
enclosed plan is according to the sale deed dated 03.04.2019
executed by the 2nd defendant. While examining these
documents it is noticed that the vendors of said
5Simhachalam, while executing the sale deed inadvertently
got recited item no.2 of sale deed as that of land covered by
S.no.52 but being abutting to 1st item thereof. Thus, the
properties covered by items 1 and 2 are a compact single
plot.
(h) It is also relevant to mention that the land covered by
S.no.56 measuring Ac.9.62 Cents was acquired by 2nd
defendant under doct no’s 511/2007, 512/2007 both dated
13.02.2007 and doct no.3117/2007 and the same was
disposed of to the said DVR Infra Project under doct.no
1131/2019 that is after filing of this suit. Thus, the 2nd
defendant has not retained any land and so also, the 1st
defendant has no land in S.no.57/1.
and thus render justice.”
3. The plaintiffs filed suit to grant permanent injunction against the
defendants, their men, servants and agents restraining from in anyway
interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaint schedule land and from invading their rights in any manner over
the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs aver that the land in Survey
No.57/1 to an extent of Ac.1-66 cents of dry land and to an extent of
Ac.0-51 cents covered by Survey No.57/2, situated in Solipi
Somarajupeta Village in the then Nelimarla Mandal, now in Gurla
Mandal, purchased by one Smt.Yerramsetti Simhachalam,
6
W/o.Suribabu, vide registered sale deed document No.5021 of 1981
dated 02.12.1981; since the purchase of the property, she is in
possession and the plaintiffs, who are the paternal grandsons,
succeeded the property by inheritance and the plaintiffs learnt that the
2nd defendant got recorded his name in the revenue records to grab the
property with an evil intention and the 2nd defendant indulged in the said
nefarious act and surreptitiously and in collusion with revenue officials,
notwithstanding the incorporation of the name of the 2nd defendant, the
plaintiffs are in the possession of the suit schedule property, hence
prayed to grant permanent injunction.
4. Now the plaintiffs filed the I.A.No.618 of 2024 for amendment of
the pliant schedule on the grounds that the plaintiffs have changed the
vakalat and the present counsel after going through the sale deed of the
vendor of their grandmother, revenue records, mutation applications,
rejection orders, survey reports, and also document dated 30.04.2006,
executed by the 1st defendant in favour on N.V.S.Suryanarayana,
wherein the 1st defendant has admitted the survey number 57 is not his
property and got surveyed the land by a qualified surveyor, the 2nd
defendant acquired the land in survey number 57 land in three sale
deeds and the 2nd defendant sold the land to Adon Infra Projects under
7
Doc.No.1132/2019 on 03.04.2019 and the execution of the sale deed in
favour of the grandmother of the plaintiffs her vendors by mistake
mentioned item no-2 as land in Survey No.52, though actually it forms a
compact single plot along with item No-1 of the plaint schedule abutting
it, the 2nd defendant disposed his land in Survey Nos.56, 57 of 2019 and
he has no subsisting interest, therefore notwithstanding the mistaken
description in their grandmother’s sale deed and the surveyor’s plan and
the boundaries admitted by the defendants themselves, hence prayed
to permit the plaintiffs to amend the plaint schedule in the interest of
justice and to avoid irreparable hardship and loss.
5. The defendants have not filed any counter to I.A.No.618 of 2024.
6. The learned trial Court Judge, after considering arguments of the
plaintiffs, has dismissed the I.A.No.618 of 2024, vide order dated
03.01.2025, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Revajeetu Builder & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons and
others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that the Court should be vigilant to grant amendment or not (i)
whether the amendment sought is necessary for determining the real
controversy (ii) where it introduces a totally different new and
8
inconsistent case, (iii) whether it prejudices the other side (iv) whether it
amounts to withdrawal of an admission.
7. And the learned trial Court also relied on another judgment of the
Apex Court in Vishwambhar and other Vs. Laxminaryan reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 163, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when an
amendment changes the nature of the suit shouldn’t be allowed, and
when the amendment application substitutes one cause of action for
another. The learned trial Court also cited another judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and others reported in
(1998) 1 SCC 278 and also quoted another judgment in Kailash Vs.
Nanhku reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that amendment is impermissible, when it is permitted, it drastically
alter the nature of the suit after commencement of the trial.
8. Challenging the I.A.No.618 of 2024 order dated 03.01.2025, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India on the grounds that the trial Court ought to have
been allowed the amendment, as it causes no prejudice to the
defendants and it doesn’t alter or change the nature of the suit, as
observed by the trial Court, as the defendants have not filed any counter
9
or contested the Interlocutory Application, the Court ought to have been
allowed on this score alone.
POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of G.S.Prakash Vs.
Polasa Hanumanlu reported in (2015) 1 ALD 270, for the proposition
that the Courts must be more liberal in allowing the amendment of
pleadings as the opposite party will have more opportunities to rebut the
amended pleadings than in the latter cases. And also relied on the
judgment of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad in the case of
Jangili Venkateswarlu & Ors. Vs. Bandaru Omkaraiah & Anr.
reported in 2002(3) A.P.L.J. 355 (HC) and the relevant paragraph of the
said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the
Judgment under appeal permitting the plaintiffs to amend the
plaint by adding the relief of recovery of possession as an
alternative relief is erroneous and contrary to the settled
principles of law.”
This judgment goes against the petitioners herein.
10. The learned trial Court Judge has correctly dismissed the
I.A.No.618 of 2024 noting that, if the amendment is allowed, it changes
10
the entire suit. The plaintiffs are now attempting to change the entire
scope of the suit changing the extent of suit and survey numbers by way
of this amendment. According to the plaintiffs, their paternal
grandmother purchased the land in Survey No.57/1 to an extent of
Ac.1.66 cents of dry land and to an extent of Ac.0.51 cents covered by
Survey No.57/2, vide registered sale deed document No.5021 of 1981
dated 02.12.1981. Now the plaintiffs want to change the extent of land
and the survey number. The suit is based upon the sale deed, if any
mistakes found in the sale deed and any errors within that document
should be rectified accordingly. Unless the sale deed is rectified, the
plaintiffs cannot seek a change in the plaint based on the surveyor’s
finding that the property measures 3.48 acres. The law is very well that
the document prevails no oral evidence can be given contrary to
document. As per the document, the land is purchased by the
grandmother of the plaintiffs is Ac.1.66 cents in Survey No.57/1, an
extent Ac.0.51 cents covered by Survey No.57/2. And the learned trial
Court has rightly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court which is
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The mere failure of
the defendants to contest is not sufficient ground to allow the
application. The situation suggests that there is some collusion in
11
between the plaintiffs and defendants to decisive the subsequent
purchaser. Therefore this Court sees any perversity or illegality in the
order of the trial Court.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending in both the
cases, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 11.03.2026
siva
12
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2871 of 2025
Date: 11.03.2026
siva