Sri V. Selvakumar represented by his Power of attorney Holder, Sri M.G. Jaganath vs Smt. Jayalakshmamma Reddy and Others

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants. Suit is for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Respondents/defendants have filed the written statements and have contested the suit claim. Respondents filed I.A. 8 under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking the raising of an additional issue. Though objections were filed to I.A. 8 by the plaintiff, the Trial Court having found merit in the application to certain extent, has allowed the said application in part and has ordered to frame an issue with regard to the title of the plaintiff and his vendor. This writ petition is directed against the said order.

Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record.

Since the suit is one for declaration of title and injunction, the plaintiff has to establish his right to the suit property and lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. The calling upon of the plaintiff to prove the title of his vendor is unnecessary. The Trial Court has to delete the part of the additional issue with regard to the plaintiff being called upon to prove the title of his vendor. Only to the said extent, the impugned order calls for interference.

In the result, writ petition stands allowed. Impugned order stands modified. I.A. 8 stands allowed, in that, the issue which is required to be raised is, "whether the plaintiff has acquired lawful title to suit property".

Ordered accordingly.