THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6172 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.124 of 2007 in the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was filed in the capacity of the petitioner as Kartha of the Joint Hindu Family. He pleaded that himself and his two sons Rameswara Reddy and Seshi Reddy constituted a Joint Hindu Family and that the properties are held and maintained by him. Reference was made to the issuance of pattadar pass books and entries in the Adangal Register. The complaint of the petitioner was that the respondent tried to interfere with the possession over the suit schedule property. The respondent filed a written statement stating that there was an oral partition in the family of the petitioner and his sons and that the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of Rameswara Reddy. The respondent is said to have purchased the property from Rameswara Reddy, through sale deed, dated 05.01.2007. The trial of the suit has commenced. While filing an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, the petitioner wanted to reconcile to the facts pleaded by the respondent, namely that there was a partition in the family. However, according to him, the suit schedule property has fallen to his share. To introduce these facts into his plaint, the petitioner filed I.A.No.526 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The application was opposed by the respondent alleging that the amendment, if permitted would change whole complexion of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 18.11.2010. Hence, this revision. Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court ought not to have rejected the application, particularly when the petitioner wanted to bring the plaint in conformity with certain facts pleaded by the respondent in his written statement. The petitioner instituted the proceedings claiming the status of a Kartha of the Joint Hindu Family. The proposed amendment brings a substantial variance of the situation. He pleads that a partition has taken place and the suit schedule property has fallen to his share. Though contradictory pleas can be taken in the pleadings, the complexion of the suit as a whole must not be changed as a result of the amendment. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter. If the petitioner is so advised, he has to withdraw the suit and institute separate set of proceedings by pleading necessary facts, particularly when no definite findings are recorded anywhere as to the status of the family. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07.04.2011. kdl