THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.3949 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 3.8.2010 passed by the court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in rejecting the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff, in I.A.No.230/2010 in O.S.No.158/2008, the present revision is filed. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondents – Government. The case of the plaintiff is that their family surrendered an extent of Acs.70-00 cents under the Land Ceiling Act and after surrender of surplus land, they got an extent of Acs.44-21 cents and in a partition that took place on 21.4.1989, an extent of Acs.8-42 cents fell to his share and as the respondents are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. Item no.1 of B schedule property is an extent of Acs.8-42 cents and at the time of taking possession of the surplus land, the Revenue Officials demarcated the land retained by the plaintiff’s family, which includes the land covered and marked as ABCD of Advocate Commissioner’s plan B. The said land was allotted to the share of the plaintiff in the partition deed dated 21.4.1989. At the time of measuring the land through an Advocate Commissioner, the Revenue Officials found that ABCD is classified as CJFS land and that after measurement, the patta land is found only Acs.8-22 cents. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that ABCD as shown in the Commissioner’s plan filed along with the report to an extent of 0-25 cents is in possession of the plaintiff since 1977, thereby he acquired the right and title over ABCD 0-25 cents by adverse possession and, therefore, he sought an amendment to that effect. The court below by the impugned order rejected the said amendment on the ground that it amounts to new cause of action. 4. From the material on record, the case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of Acs.8-42 cents of land and after measurement, the patta land was found to be only an extent of Acs.8-22 cents. But the case of the plaintiff is that the remaining extent of Ac.0-25cents, is in his possession since 1977 and therefore, his case is that he acquired the right by adverse possession and this fact was noticed by him after filing of the report by the Advocate Commissioner. 5. It is well settled that amendment of the plaint can be considered liberally to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In C.LAXMI DEVI v. S.ABDUL RAHIMAN[1], it is observed as under: “7. In K.Chinna Biddamma V. J.Krishnama Naidu and others (2001(1) ALT 342), the then learned Chief Justice of this Court held that amendment of plaint to be considered liberally to avoid multifarious suits and where a suit for permanent injunction was filed and application was filed for amendment of plaint seeking declaration of title also, the rejection of application is not legal and by allowing amendment defendants would not be even prejudiced as question of title can be incidentally gone into in a suit for injunction.” 6. In this case, the extent which is found in excess of the plaint schedule property, is alleged to be in the possession of the plaintiff since 1977 and therefore, he sought for amendment for declaration of title to the said extent on the ground of acquiring the title by adverse possession. The relief claimed by the plaintiff does not amount to new cause of action and it has to be decided based on the material evidence to be made available by the parties and further no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any justification in rejecting the amendment sought for by the plaintiff and accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the I.A.No.230/2010 in O.S.No.158/2008 is allowed. 8. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS ----------------------------- 23—08—2011 [1] 2006(1) ALT 4