IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5975 of 2009 Between: Vantari Ravi ..... PETITIONER AND Dega Muni Rathnam (died) and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5975 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti dated 23.07.2009 in I.A.4/2009 in O.S.353/2003. The petitioner is the 1st defendant. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant as null and void. A written statement was filed by the 1st defendant. In paragraph-8 of the written statement it is alleged his father late V.Munaswamy Naidu executed a registered settlement deed dated 13.04.1988 in his favour in respect of the schedule property and since then the 1st defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and is entitled to sell away an extent of Ac.0.20 cents to the 2nd defendant vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.2002. Thereafter, the 1st defendant came up with an application in I.A.4/2009 in O.S.353/2003 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti contending that his mother namely V.Munirathnamma @ Munemma got the schedule property by way of oral partition effected in 1982 among herself and her brothers, the plaintiff. Defendants Nos.4 and 5. It is stated that his mother Munemma died intestate in the year 1986 and these facts were not mentioned in his written statement and therefore, he filed I.A.4/2009 seeking to amend the written statement. Even according to the original written statement, it is the case of the 1st defendant that he got the said property vide registered settlement deed executed by his father. It is always open for the 1st defendant to adduce evidence tracing out the title of the said property said to have been settled in favour of the defendants and an extent of Ac.0.20 cents was sold vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.2002 in favour of the 2nd defendant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no amendment is necessary as it is always open for the 1st defendant to adduce evidence tracing out the title how he got schedule property. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 18.06.2010 Dsr