HC - Unless the description of the property is clear and complete, there cannot be effective adjudication of the suit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

C.R.P.No.700 of 2012

GOTTIPATI SRI VENKATESWARA PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

VS

NAGISETTY SRINIVAS, VISAKHAPATNAM AND 3 OTHERS

ORDER:

The petitioner filed O.S.No.270 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession  of the suit schedule property - a plot of 406 sq. yards.  The claim was based upon a sale deed.  The respondents filed written-statement.  The trial of the suit commenced.  At that stage, the petitioner realized that the suit schedule property was part of a lay-out, in respect of lands covered by Sy.Nos.23/15, 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 7, 4 , 13, and patta Nos.40 and 123 of Aganampudi Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.  However, in the plaint, only the first of the numbers, viz., 23/15 and patta No.40 were mentioned.  With a view to make the description complete, the petitioner filed I.A.No.682 of 2011, under Rule 6 of Order XVII C.P.C., with a prayer to permit him to amend the description of the property in the plaint.  The respondents opposed the application.  The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 06-01-2012. Hence, this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The suit schedule property is in plot No.18 of a lay-out, sanctioned by the Urban Development Authority.  The land, which was developed through the lay-out, was comprised in several sub-divisions of Sy.No.23, and two pattas viz., 40 and 123 of Aganampudi Village.  Either due to oversight, or being confident that it would be sufficient, if one of the numbers is mentioned, the petitioner stated only Sy.No.23/15 and patta No.40, in the plaint.  On realizing that the description was not complete, and with a view to avoid any possibility of the plaint being not perfect, the application was filed.  The trial Court has proceeded on hyper-technicalities.  Unless the description of the property is clear and complete, there cannot be effective adjudication of the suit. 

Accordingly, the C.R.P is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside.  Consequently, I.A.No.682 of 2011 shall stand allowed. 

The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P. shall also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                     ________________________

                                                                         L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

Dt. 27-09-2012.

KO­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­