THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.219 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.4 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Their claim was that the property was purchased from the ancestors of the respondents, but there did not exist any sale deed. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.533 of 2009 with a prayer to permit them to incorporate the plea of adverse possession in their plaint. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 06.11.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the trial Court has taken the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners, as additional relief, whereas it is being raised only as an additional ground. He further submits that the plea of adverse possession according to law, as it stands now, can be taken as the basis for declaration of title also. Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have raised the plea of adverse possession only as an after thought. He contends that the petitioners were in fact convinced that their possession over the property was not adverse to the interests of the respondents and at this length of time i.e. four years after the suit was filed, they cannot be permitted to incorporate that plea. He further submits that the plea raised by the petitioners is inconsistent with the stand taken in the plaint. The petitioners sought permission of the Court to amend the plaint in the suit filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. As mentioned earlier, the declaration was in the context of the absence of any valid sale deed. Till recently, the plea of adverse possession was recognised only as defence, in a suit for recovery. In the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised this plea as an independent source of title itself. Therefore, the observation made by the trial Court that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners would be an additional relief cannot be sustained in law. The trial Court did not find any other ground for rejecting the application. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the trial of the suit is yet to commence. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.533 of 2009 is allowed. It shall be open to the respondents to file additional written statement dealing with the plea of adverse possession raised by the petitioners after the amended copy of the plaint is filed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.08.2010 kdl