B. Mettubandi vs T. Lakshmamma and Others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This revision is directed against the rejection of plea for amendment of the plaint The amendment sought to be inserted was that when the suit properties were purchased by the plaintiff and his brother in the name of their mother Hanumakka, the plaintiff and his brother Nagappa were the members of the joint family governed by Mitakshara Law, and that the sale deed was taken in the year 1946 and by that time the plaintiff and his brothers were living jointly constituting the members of a joint Hindu family. In fact, this was a plea concerning with Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (Act 45 of 1988). Such a plea was not superfluous and in fact an issue was already framed by the Lower Court to the effect that "whether the suit transaction is hit by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (Act 45 of 1988), if so, of what consequence?" When the petitioner sought to amend the plaint inserting the above plea which is in no way inconsistent and superfluous and in fact, it is necessary, the Court below errneously rejected the said plea. In the circumstances, the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur is directed to permit the petitioner to carry out the amendment as sought for.

The C.R.P. is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.