N. Guruvarao and Another vs B. Pratap Reddy and Others

Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.—The only point urged by the petitioners'' Counsel in this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that the defendants who intended to file additional written statement were permitted by the lower Court to take up self-destructive plea, which is not permissible in law. In the original written statement, the defendants 1 and 2 denied title of the plaintiffs for the suit property. In the proposed additional written statement, the defendants 1 and 2 put-forward the plea that in view of General Power of Attorney executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the second defendant, the plaintiffs cannot exercise right of ownership. This additional plea is not destructive of the original plea taken in the written statement. It is only an alternative plea put-forward by the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants are entitled to take alternative or inconsistent pleas unlike a plaintiff The decisions relied on by the Counsel for the petitioners in Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2423 of 2009, dated 13.4.2009, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee v. Jaswant Singh, SLP (C) No. 16795 of 1996, dated 4.9.1996 Shaik Ghouse Mohideen Vs. Punagani Erikalamma alias Settamma and others, and Shaik Asha and Another being minors rep. by Court guardian Vs. Shaik Moulaali and Others, , are not applicable to facts of this case. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed.