Adusumilli Venkateswar Rao and another vs Chalasani Hymavathi

Jagannadha Rao, J.

The suit was originally instituted as one for permanent injunction and the plaintiff applied for temporary injunction pending suit and the same was rejected by the trial court, as well as in appeal by the Appellate Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff came forward with an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for conversion of the suit into one for possession. The said application has been allowed and it is against this order that the present revision has been preferred.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that conversion of the suit for permanent injunction into one for possession amounts to alteration of the nature of the suit and that the same should not have been permitted. Secondly it is argued that the amendment application is filed beyond six months from the date of which, even according to the plaintiff, the defendant entered into possession subsequent to the suit.

In my opinion, both the contentions are untenable. It has been held in a number of cases by various High Courts, including our High Court that a suit for injunction can be converted into a suit for possession and that such conversion does not amount to alteration of the nature of the suit. It is surprising that in spite of the settled law (See K. Kameswara Rao v. K. Rajyalakshmi, 1970(1) APLJ 309) in this behalf in all the High Courts, still the same points are being raised in the Lower Courts.

So far as the other contention is concerned, the suit being a suit on civil side for a relief of possession and not being a summary suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the contention that the conversion application is filed beyond six months of the date on which, even according to the plaintiff, the defendant entered into possession, is equally untenable. This contention loses sight of the well known distinction between summary suits filed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act and regular suits for possession. In the latter case, the period of six months'' limitation is not attracted and it is open to the plaintiff to sue for possession on the basis of the title and if the plaintiff proves title, it will be for the defendants to establish as to how the said title is extinguished by a adverse possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application filed beyond six months from the date on which the defendants came into possession pending suit, is barred by limitation.

The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.

Revision dismissed.