HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.792 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is said to have gifted an item of immovable property in favour of the 1st respondent, with an intention that the property shall be enjoyed only during her life time. However, the 1st respondent sold the property in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed O.S.No.62 of 2004 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, for enforcement of rights of pre-emption. During the pendency of the suit, he filed I.A.No.436 of 2010, with a prayer to permit him to amend the plaint to incorporate the plea that the name of the 2nd respondent be substituted with that of the petitioner. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 26.07.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Y.Kanakalingeswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that proper attention was not paid, in the context of framing the relief in the suit. If according to the petitioner, the 1st respondent does not have the right to sell the property, a declaration to that effect ought to have been claimed. Similarly, in case he felt that the sale deed executed in favour of the 2nd respondent is not binding upon him, relief in that direction ought to have been prayed for. The question of seeking a declaration as to right of preemption would arise, if only the plaintiff acknowledges the right of the defendant to sell the property. The plaintiff asserts his right to purchase it in preference to others. Even if the amendment is allowed, it does not improve the situation. On the other hand, it would add further complications. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to take necessary steps to claim the relief, which would accord with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:30.03.2011 GJ