1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6889 of 2024) REBBANAMONI ANAND @ SANTHAPURAM ANAND APPELLANT VERSUS SANTHAPURAM JANARDHAN REDDY AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS R1 : SANTHAPURAM JANARDHAN REDDY R2 : S. SAHADEV REDDY R3 : S. MAHADEV REDDY O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. 2. The appellant seeks interference in the impugned order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad by which the petition to amend the suit filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff had been allowed. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that originally, the suit was for simpliciter injunction with regard to possession of the suit property in favour of
2 respondent no.1-plaintiff. The suit was of the year 2008. However, o n 17.06.2022, an amendment petition was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff seeking to amend the relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It was submitted that the entire case of the plaintiff, right from the beginning had been that they had the title and also possession and only a declaration was required, but suddenly, the nature of the suit itself is sought to be changed by seeking the amendment sought where a declaration with regard to title followed by recovery of possession has been filed, which is impermissible and rightly, the Trial Court had rejected the same vide its order dated 13.02.2023 but the High Court has erroneously interfered and allowed the amendment. 4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that initially, the plaintiff was in possession but only on 01.03.2021, he was dispossessed from the suit land and that is why, an amendment petition was filed on 17.06.2022. On a pointed query of the Court as to why it took more than one year for the plaintiff to file the amendment petition, it was submitted that it was covid time. When the Court further put a query whether any complaint was lodged before any other authority with regard to forceful dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land, learned counsel fairly admitted that he had not moved any other authority. Another plea raised
3 was that if the plaintiff has a cause of action for declaration of title and recovery of possession, it would unnecessarily be a multiplicity of the suit and thus, if the amendment is made in the present suit itself, the issue would be decided and the appellant-defendant would always have a chance to rebut the same and contest on merits. 5. Be that as it may, from the very reading of the amendment petition and the ground taken for seeking such amendment, we are not satisfied with regard to the bona fide of the plaintiff. We also concur with the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant-defendant that if such an amendment is allowed, the entire nature of the suit would change and this cannot be permitted by way of an amendment. With regard to the stand that the amendment would only save further litigation, the same is erroneous for the simple reason that after efflux of more than thirteen years, there would be limitation staring in the face of the plaintiff to even institute the suit and thus, what could not have been done directly cannot be done indirectly and surreptitiously through an amendment of the plaint. 6. For reasons aforesaid, without dwelling much on the merits, we find that the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The amendment sought by the respondent no.1-plaintiff is rejected and the order of
4 the Trial Court stands restored. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ……………………………………………………………………J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] …………………………………………………………………………J. [S.V.N. BHATTI] NEW DELHI 21 st JULY, 2025
5 ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.15 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).6889/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-12-2023 in CRP No.856/2023 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad] REBBANAMONI ANAND @SANTHAPURAM ANAND Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANTHAPURAM JANARDHAN REDDY & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 21-07-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. 2. The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAPNA BISHT) (ANJALI PANWAR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6889/2024 [Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 04-12-2023 in CRP No. 856/2023 passed by the High Court for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad] REBBANAMONI ANAND @SANTHAPURAM ANAND Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANTHAPURAM JANARDHAN REDDY & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 17-01-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Sumanth Nookala, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff (respondent No.1) prays for and is granted four weeks time to file response in the matter. (NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.52 REGISTRAR COURT SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MS. SUJATA SINGH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6889/2024 REBBANAMONI ANAND @SANTHAPURAM ANAND Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANTHAPURAM JANARDHAN REDDY & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12-11-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Neha Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent no.1 is granted four weeks’ time as last opportunity for filing counter affidavit. Service is complete on respondent nos. 2 and 3 but none has entered appearance. At the end of the period aforesaid, Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon’ble Court as per rules as Hon'ble Court has on 22.03.2024 directed to issue notice, returnable in four weeks. SUJATA SINGH Registrar HJ
ITEM NO.112 REGISTRAR COURT SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MS. SUJATA SINGH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6889/2024 REBBANAMONI ANAND @SANTHAPURAM ANAND Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANTHAPURAM JANARDHAN REDDY & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 09-09-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Neha Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks time is granted to the respondent No. 1 to file counter affidavit. S ervice of notice is complete on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. List again on 12.11.2024. SUJATA SINGH Registrar
1 ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).6889/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-12-2023 in CRP No.856/2023 passed by the High Court For The State Of Telangana At Hyderabad) REBBANAMONI ANAND @ SANTHAPURAM ANAND Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANTHAPURAM JANARDHAN REDDY & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION ) Date : 22-03-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prity Kumari, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, AOR Mr. G. Rajeshwar Rao, Adv. Mr. Kesireddy Venkatramulu, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Mr. Prity Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. In challenging the order of the High Court allowing amendment of the plaint at the instance of the plaintiffs, the counsel would submit that such amendment would change the nature of the suit from a suit seeking permanent injunction to a suit of title declaration. The counsel would then refer to the Report of the Mandal Surveyor dated 13.02.2021 (Annexure P-9), which indicates that the plaintiffs is not in physical possession of the Survey No.137 and the supporting documents produced by the plaintiff is not matching
2 the physical possession and the co-pattedars have filed objection. 3. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner is permitted to replace wrongly placed pages of Annexure P-10, i.e., the amendment application filed by the plaintiff. (DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR