Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Akula Subba Rao, Spsr Nellore Dist 3 ... vs A.Ranganadham, Spsr Nellore Dist 2 ... on 30 August, 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4417 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Court of learned VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, in I.A.No.378 of 2014 in O.S.No.216 of 2014 dated 30.04.2016.
2. The defendants are the petitioners.
3. The respondents as the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.378 of 2014 in O.S.No.216 of 2014 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to permit them to amend the plaint as set out hereunder:
1) In the plaint after Para No.7, add the following as Para No.7-A:-
"7-A. The plaintiffs humbly submit that the Defendants got filed their written statement alleging that the 1st plaintiff has relinquished his share in the joint family property by executing a registered relinquishment deed bearing Doc.No.51/1964 of S.R.O., Nellore dated 25.07.1964 by receiving an amount of Rs.14,500/- towards his share and walked out of the family and thereafter the father of the 1st plaintiff got executed a registered WILL in favour of the 1st Defendant on 19.07.1989 under Doc.No.199/1989 and that subsequently also the 1st Plaintiff received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st Defendant and his father and got executed a document on 19-07-1989 by admitting the alleged WILL executed by Late Surya Narayana and also his execution of the relinquishment deed etc. And that Item No.3 is the personal property of 2nd Defendant's wife Akula Surekha Rani, which she has sold away in the year 2013 are all absolutely false and are hereby denied by us. At any point of time, the 1st Plaintiff never went to the Registrar's Office and never executed any relinquishment 2 deed in favour of the 1st Defendant and his father Late Surya Narayana. Hence, it is nothing but an impersonated document, forged and fabricated by the 1st Defendant with great foresight and without the knowledge of the 1st Plaintiff and till today, the Plaintiffs have no knowledge about the existence of those alleged documents with the Defendants. If those documents are in existence, certainly they ought to have replied for the notice issued by the Plaintiffs prior to the filing of the suit. Hence, the 1st Plaintiff intend to add the relief of cancellation of such document bearing No.51 of 1964 as the same is alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the 1st Defendant and his father. The father of the 1st Defendant during his life-time never disclosed about the said fact to the 1st Plaintiff at any point of time and likewise the execution of alleged registered WILL in favour of the 1st Defendant. Even the Defendants also never disclosed this fact. Hence, even the alleged WILL is also got fabricated by the 1st Defendant and his sons by representing the same with the father of the 1st Defendant or in any other mode. Hence, the alleged WILL, if any, is not binding on the rights of the Plaintiffs. Further, to the knowledge of the 1st Plaintiff, his father never executed any such WILL in favour of the 1st Defendant and hence the question of subsequent acknowledgement of the same through another document by the 1st Plaintiff does not arise at all. Thus, all the documents filed by the Defendants are nothing but created documents only with an intention to evade the legal share of the Plaintiffs. Likewise, the wife of the 2nd Defendant Akula Surekha Rani is only a house- wife and even the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule seems to have been purchased on her name secretly by the 2nd Defendant with the funds of the joint family and as the Plaintiffs have been making demands to them, they sold away the same in the year 2013 to one Dr.Muppirala Lakshmi Ramesh, S/o.Rama Murthy of Nellore. Hence, the Plaintiffs have been filing another application to 3 implead the said purchaser M.Lakshmi Ramesh and the wife of the 2nd Defendant A. Surekha Rani also as parties to the suit. The Plaintiffs also including the property situated at Gundlapalem Village as Item No.4 in the plaint schedule. As the plaintiffs came to know about the alleged relinquishment deed through the counter and written statement, their proposed relief of its cancellation is well within the limitation."
2) In Para No.9 of the Plaint, after the words "For purposes of Court Fees and Jurisdiction, this suit is valued as follows:-"the valuation assessment sub-para may be substituted as follows:-
"The value of the plaint schedule 1st item is valued at Rs.97,20,000/- value of the plaint schedule 2nd item is valued at Rs.3,75,000/- value of the plaint schedule 3rd item is valued at Rs.42,84,000/- and the value of the plaint schedule 4th item is valued at Rs.17,60,000/- and thus the total value of the four items of the plaint schedule property is Rs.1,61,39,600/- wherein the ½ share of the Plaintiffs comes to Rs.80,69,800/- wherein for the purposes of assessment of Court Fee is 3/4ths value therein comes to Rs.60,52,350/- and as the Plaintiffs are in constructive and joint possession along with the Defendants, fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid on the plaint U/s.34(2) of the A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act, 1956.
Relief of Cancellation of document bearing No:51/64 of S.R.O., Nellore dated 25-07-1964 is valued on its value of Rs.14,500/- and a Court Fee of Rs.1,056/- is paid on the plaint U/s.37(1)(a) of A.P.Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Thus, the total Court Fee paid on the plaint is Rs.200/- + 1,056/- = 1,256/- and the same is deposited in the account of this Hon'ble Court in lieu of Court Fee Stamps."4
(Already, Rs.200/- was deposited and the remaining Rs.1,056/- will be deposited after allowing this I.A. and the Plaintiffs undertake to deposit the same).
3) In the plaint, in the Relief Portion at Para No.10, after the relief (iii), add the following relief as "(iv)".
"(iv) Cancelling the document styled as registered relinquishment deed alleged to have been executed by the 1st Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Defendant and his father dated 25-07-1964 under Doc.No.51/1964 of S.R.O., Nellore as the same is the product of forgery brought into existence by the 1st Defendant".
4) In the Plaint Schedule, after Item No.3, the following may be added as "Item No.4".
"Item No.4: Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore Registration District, Stonehousepet Sub-Registration, Gundlapalem Village, Wet land in Old Survey No.94, New Survey No.213/1, an extent of Ac.1-76 cents as full extent.
Market Value is Rs.17,60,000/-."
4. The suit instituted by the respondents is for partition. The first petitioner and the first respondent are brothers. They are sons of Sri Late Suryanarayana. Respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of the first respondent. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the sons of the first petitioner. The trial in the suit is yet to commence.
5. The affidavit in support of the above petition was filed in the trial Court by third respondent. The third respondent referred to the contentions of the petitioners in their written statement and counter in I.A.No.182/2014, by which they sought temporary injunction during pendency of the suit, that the first respondent had relinquished his share in the joint family property, upon executing a registered relinquishment deed dated 25.07.1964, received cash of 5 Rs.14,500/- towards his share and walked out of the family. It is also averred in this affidavit that in the above written statement, it is further alleged that Sri Late Suryanarayana had executed a registered Will in favour of the first petitioner on 19.07.1989 and that the first respondent had received Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from the first petitioner, who had executed a document on 19.07.1989 admitting the afore stated Will of Sri Late Suryanarayana as well as the relinquishment deed stated above. It is further averred in his affidavit that item No.3 of the plaint schedule is claimed to be the personal property of Smt.Akula Surekha Rani, wife of the second petitioner, which she had sold in the year 2013.
6. According to the contents of this affidavit all the above averments in the written statement are false and that the first respondent had never executed any relinquishment deed in favour of the first petitioner and his father Sri Late Suryanarayana nor attend the office of Sub-Registrar, which was fabricated by impersonation and forged, without knowledge of the first respondent. It is also claimed in this affidavit that they came to know about existence of these alleged documents, only from the averments in the written statement nor Sri Late Suryanarayana had informed the first respondent about the relinquishment deed as well as the registered will. It is also averred that when a legal notice was issued by the petitioner prior to the institution of the suit, no reply was issued by the respondents, setting out similar claim. Thus claiming both these documents as fabricated and forged by the petitioners by misrepresenting to Sri Late Suryanarayana or by any other mode and that the plaint should be suitably amended for such purpose denying these documents, it was requested to allow the petition. 6
7. The petitioners opposed this petition by filing a detailed counter through the first petitioner, asserting execution of the documents referred to above in the nature of relinquishment deed and registered will of Sri Late Suryanarayana and that the first respondent had opted to relinquish his right and interest in the family properties for consideration. Denying that these documents were obtained by impersonation, being fabricated as well as forged and further denying that the respondents had no knowledge of the same at any stage, they contended that amendment of the plaint as sought cannot be ordered. They further stated in the counter that the reason assigned by the respondents that no reply was issued to the legal notice issued by them before filing the suit, cannot be sufficient to allow the petition. Thus stating, they requested to dismiss the petition.
8. Upon considering the rival contentions, learned trial Judge had chosen to accept the version of the respondents mainly on the ground that trial in the suit has not yet commenced and there would not be any change in the cause of action. It was further observed by the learned trial Judge that the petitioners did not state in their counter that they would be put to serious loss if the proposed amendment is permitted. It was also observed that allowing the petition would prevent multiplicity of proceedings, saving time of the Court and that real dispute in between the parties, could be decided.
9. Assailing these observations, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the proposed amendment is hopelessly barred by time in as much as the relinquishment deed dated 25.07.1964 is sought to be questioned, fifty years later in the year 2014. Having regard to its nature and subsequent developments in acknowledging the same by the first 7 respondent at different stages, it is also contended that the 1st petitioner did not choose to file an affidavit in support of this petition specifically denying execution of these documents in favour of his brother and father. Thus, it is contended that the trial Court grievously erred in allowing the petition for amendment.
10. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 Sri S.Lakshmi- narayana Reddy, supported the order under revision with reference to material on record and stating that existence of such documents came to the notice of the respondents only from the averments in the written statement as well as counter filed by them in I.A.No.182 of 2014 by which temporary injunction was sought by them against the petitioners. Thus it is contended that Article 59 of Limitation Act, applies to this case and immediately after filing the written statement, this amendment of the plaint has been sought, within three years of coming to know of these documents. Thus it is strenuously contended on behalf of the respondents that the bar of limitation did not apply and if the proposed amendment remains on record, the petitioners would not suffer any prejudice nor they would be taken by surprise. It is also contended for the respondents that the amendments of this nature should liberally allowed by the Courts which leads to avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and the same was followed by the learned trial Judge. Thus stating, it is requested on behalf of the respondents, not to interfere with the order under revision.
11. Now, the point for determination is whether the proposed amendment, particularly with reference to claim of questioning relinquishment deed dated 25.07.1964 is impermissible, since barred by time and if, the order under revision is proper? 8
12. In this revision petition, contentions on behalf of both the parties are confined only with reference to the registered relinquishment deed dated 25.07.1964 alleged to have had been executed by the first respondent in favour of the first petitioner and their father Sri Late Suryanarayana, giving up his share in the family properties, upon receiving cash of Rs.14,500/-. Further circumstances that the first respondent received Rs.1,00,000/- in cash, that he acknowledged not only this relinquishment deed but also registered will executed by Sri Late Suryanarayana on 19.07.1989 bequeathing his properties in favour of the first petitioner are also adverted to in this context.
13. A careful consideration of material in this case makes out that the petitioners (as respondents in I.A.No.378 of 2014) did not plead bar of limitation questioning the proposed amendment in their counter. As seen from the order under revision, it is also explicit that no such contention was raised before the learned trial Judge. In para 13 of this order, learned trial Judge, referred to the contention of the petitioners that the respondents are debarred to add the relief of cancellation of document dated 25-07-1964.
14. However, in this respect, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this court to Section 3 of Limitation Act, which provides for bar of limitation.
Section 3(1) of Limitation Act Reads as under:
"(1)Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence."9
15. In terms thereof, according to learned counsel for the petitioners although limitation has not been set up as a defence, it is the duty of the Court to consider whether the claim is within time or not. It is equally applicable, in cases of petitions or applications according to learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of Section 141 CPC. This broad proposition has not been seriously assailed on behalf of the respondents even though arguments have been advanced, on the question that question of limitation cannot be made applicable at the stage, in considering a petition for amendment or with reference to the contents of the averments sought to be introduced by means of the proposed amendment.
16. Nonetheless, effect of Section 3 of Limitation Act, has to be considered in this matter despite the fact that there is no averment or objection raised by the petitioners in their counter in the trial Court.
17. In this context on behalf of the petitioners, the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES AND ANOTHER v. PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK AND OTHERS1 is relied on. The pertinent observations in this context are in paras-12 to 14. They are as under:
"12."In L.J.Leach & Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Jardine Skinner & Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357], this Court at paragraph 16 of the said decision observed as follows: (AIR p.362)
16. "It is no doubt true that courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the court to order it, if that is required in the interests of justice."1
(2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 632 10
13. Again in T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board and Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 392 this Court observed as follows (SCC p.393, paras 2-3) "2.....The law as regards permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled in L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., it was held that the Court would as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But this is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the court to order it.
3. It is not disputed that the appellate court has a coextensive power to the trial court. We find that the discretion exercised by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law."
14. From the above, therefore, one of the cardinal principles of law allowing or rejecting an application for amendment of the pleading is that the courts generally, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of filing of the application. But that would be a factor to be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion as to whether the amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the interest of justice."
18. In SAMPATH KUMAR v. AYYAKANNU AND ANOTHER2 relied on by the respondents, the observations in this context are in para-11 and they are as under:
"In the present case the amendment is being sought for almost 11 Years after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be 2 (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 559 11 incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. However, the defendant is right in submitting that if he has already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which would relate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time, by excluding a period of about 11 years in calculating the period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by the defendant. The interest of the defendant can be protected by directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession, now sought for, are concerned the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed."
19. It is also contended for the petitioners that when the bar of limitation is attracted and the relief sought to be claimed by the proposed amendment is barred by time, on account of which fresh suit cannot be filed by a party seeking such amendment, it should not be allowed.
20. On behalf of the respondents, reliance is further placed in ABDUL REHMAN AND ANOTHER v. MOHD.RULDU AND OTHERS3 contending that for determination of real questions in controversy between the parties when the trial has not commenced, the amendment sought has to be allowed. In paras-13 to 15 in this ruling, it was thus observed:
"13) In view of the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 1-3 herein/Defendant Nos. 1-3 in their written statement and the observation of the High Court in the application filed for injunction, we are of the view that the proposed amendment to include a relief of declaration of title, in addition to the 3 2013(1) ALD 1 (SC) 12 permanent injunction, is to protect their interest and not to change the basic nature of the suit as alleged.
14) In Pankaja & Another. Vs. Yellapa (Dead) By LRs. & Others.
AIR 2004 SC 4102 = (2004) 6 SCC 415, this Court held that if the granting of an amendment really sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, the same should be allowed. In the same decision, it was further held that an amendment seeking declaration of title shall not introduce a different relief when the necessary factual basis had already been laid down in the plaint in regard to the title.
15) We reiterate that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties."
21. In the same context, the respondents also relied on BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS v. MANOHAR SINGH AND ANOTHER4. In para-8 in this ruling, it was observed:
"8. It is well settled by various decisions of this Court as well as the High Courts in India that Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung (AIR 1922 P.C. 249) in which the Privy Council observed:
"All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be 4 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498 13 substituted for another, nor to change by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit."
22. In BAIRAM SUSHEELA v. PENDOTA RAMA RAJAIAH5, it was observed in para-8 as follows:
"Mere grant of permission to amend the pleadings does not confer or take away the rights of the parties. On the basis of the amendment, necessary issues have to be framed after giving an opportunity to the other party and evidence has to be adduced on the issues so framed, if necessary. It shall always be open to the parties to raise such pleas as are open to them touching on the relief introduced through amendment. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision."
23. In TEKKOLU SIDDA REDDY BY LRs AND OTHERS v. SHAIK MAHABOOB BI AND OTHERS6 in para 16 it was observed:
"The limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing of suits for cancellation of documents is three years. However, the reckoning of limitation must be from the date of knowledge of the document and not from the date of execution. If it is to be calculated from the date of execution alone, many a time it would amount to begging the question. The party, who is not aware of a document, cannot be expected to have knowledge of the same from the date of execution. It is only when he becomes aware of the document that he can be expected to take steps."
24. The proposed amendment referred supra indicates a further relief sought to be claimed in the plaint in respect of cancellation of the registered relinquishment deed attributed to the first respondent, dated 25.07.1964. The respondents have set up their claim in this context claiming that the first respondent had never known about it nor his father had ever informed him of the same nor they had knowledge of this document including another document dated 5 2004(5) ALT 233 6 2011(4) ALD 734 14 19.07.1989 as well as the WILL alleged to have had been executed by Sri late Suryanarayana. Their contention in this context included that it was brought out by impersonation as a forged and fabricated document and failure to reply to their legal notice prior to institution of the suit is relied on in this respect, for the respondents.
25. In order to seek relief of cancellation or setting aside document including a registered instrument, a suit should be filed within three years from the time the plaintiffs have first come to know through such facts, which enable them to claim such relief. According to the respondents, it was only when written statement and counter as stated above were filed in the suit, they came to know about existence of these documents and therefore, when they had taken immediate steps for amending the plaint in this context, their claim is within time, in terms of Article 59 of Limitation Act.
26. However, it is contended for the petitioners that the respondents cannot claim that they came to know about execution of a registered relinquishment deed for consideration by the first respondent, 50 years later and the very fact that it is a registered instrument, it shall be deemed that the first respondent has notice of execution of such document. Later instances that followed during lifetime of the father of the first petitioner and first respondent, according to contention of the petitioners, leaves no matter of doubt that the first respondent had known of this relinquishment deed, which he had executed and which he had never chosen to question for five long decades including during lifetime of his father.
27. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES referred to supra and as could be 15 understood from the observations in SAMPATH KUMAR'S CASE also referred to supra, the reliefs now proposed by the amendment should have been sought within three years from the date of execution of this registered relinquishment deed. As rightly pointed out for the petitioner, the first respondent did not choose to file an affidavit in support of this petition raising such contentions, as are sought to be raised through the affidavit of the third respondent.
28. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in the trial Court, though the third respondent stated that he filed it on the instructions and advice of his father(first respondent) and on behalf of second respondent, while further stating that there is no conflict of interest among them. When a registered instrument is sought to be questioned, at a such highly belated stage, it is but expected that the first respondent, whose name figured as an executant of such instrument, should have come forward to file an affidavit raising similar pleas and should have chosen to specifically question as well as challenge these two registered documents.
29. Being none other than the brother of the first petitioner, the conduct expected of him if at all he did not execute a registered document of this nature, is not to remain a silent spectator as to what was happening to the properties of the family either during lifetime of his father or thereafter. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents cannot seek such relief for cancellation of this registered relinquishment deed dated 25.07.1964, is valid and proper.
30. However, contentions are advanced on behalf of the respondents relying on the judgment of composite High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad 16 in WAHEEDA BEGUM AND OTHERS v. MD.YAKUB AND OTHERS7 to the effect that question of bar of limitation need not be considered at this stage, which could be relegated for the decision by the trial Court ultimately after parties let-in evidence and that a liberal approach is required to consider the petitions of this nature. It was also a case, where, though plea as to bar of limitation was raised in resisting the amendment petition, the trial Court did not address the same and no finding was recorded there on. However, after considering several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts including case of SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES AND ANOTHER( referred to above) as well as IN L.J.LEACH & CO. LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. JARDINE SKINNER & CO.8 it was observed in para-41, as under:
"41. Therefore, in view of the above decisions, merely because it is contended by the respondents that the suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation, the application for amendment of the plaint cannot be rejected. In the present case, there is a dispute as to whether the claim sought to be made by way of amendment is barred by limitation or not. Therefore, the Court below can frame an issue on the point of bar of limitation to grant the said relief in the suit and then decide it."
31. M.KAMALAMMA AND OTHERS v. B.DORASWAMY REDDY AND OTHERS9 is relied on for the respondents in this context, wherein it was observed in para-13 in the backdrop of facts and circumstances, as under:
"Further, any amendment which is necessary for effective adjudication of the lis and giving a quietus to the dispute between the parties, once and for all, can be permitted."7
2014(2) ALT 640 8 AIR 1957 SC 357 9 2017(5) ALT 136 17
32. It is true that the Court must be liberal in considering and allowing the applications or petitions for amendment of pleadings when the facts and circumstances deserve. At the same time, as discussed supra, exception is also found to refuse and reject such application when barred by limitation. This case on hand stands within the scope as well as purview of such exception and reasons are also assigned supra in this context.
33. Having said so, now the question is whether the amendment of the plaint set out in entirety should not be permitted or is it possible to restrict to only such severable and separable portions of proposed amendment, which is barred in the eye of law and in the context of the present case, barred by limitation.
34. A careful consideration of the proposed amendment in para-7-A did give an indication that there is possibility of severability of the pleadings and those portions relating to relief for cancellation of registered relinquishment deed dated 25.07.1964, can be separated from the rest. Out of proposed amendment in Para-7A, the following can be extracted out:
"As the plaintiffs came to know about the alleged relinquishment deed through the counter and written statement, their proposed relief of its cancellation is well within the limitation."
"Relief of Cancellation of document bearing No:51/64 of S.R.O., Nellore dated 25-07-1964 is valued on its value of Rs.14,500/- and a Court Fee of Rs.1,056/- is paid on the plaint U/s.37(1)(a) of A.P.Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act."
"Thus, the total Court Fee paid on the plaint is Rs.200/- + 1,056/- = 1,256/- and the same is deposited in the account of this Hon,ble Court in lieu of Court Fee Stamps."18
(Already, Rs.200/- was deposited and ther emaining Rs.1,056/- will be deposited after allowing this I.A. and the Plaintiffs undertake to deposit the same)."
"3) In the plaint, in the Relief Portion at Para No.10, after the relief (iii), add the following relief as "(iv)".
"(iv) Cancelling the document styled as registered relinquishment deed alleged to have been executed by the 1st Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Defendant and his father dated 25.07.1964 under Doc.No.51/1964 of S.R.O., Nellore as the same is the product of forgery brought into existence by the 1st Defendant".
and can be separated for the purpose of rejection and which falls within the ambit of refusal to permit amendment.
35. If this extracted portion is taken out from the proposed amendment in para-7-A, rest relates to the case sought to be set up by the respondents in their plaint. In this context, it is to be noted that what is barred by Section-3 of Limitation Act is enforcement of a right of a person and when the claim of such person is not within time prescribed by different articles set out in the schedule of Limitation Act, (B.K.EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. PARAG GUPTHA AND ASSOCIATES)10. Viewed from such angle, when it is found and observed in this case that the respondents as the plaintiffs cannot request for cancelling the registered relinquishment deed dated 25.07.1964, executed by the first respondent in favour of the first petitioner, such part of the proposed amendment can be held as not permissible on account of bar of limitation, to remain.
36. Remaining part of para-7-A, since forms the case being set up by the respondents in the plaint, it can remain on record and can be held being amenable for amendment in terms of Order VI Rule 17 10 AIR 2018 SC 5601 19 CPC. Therefore, for the above reasons, the portion of amendment relating to the relief shown as 'IV' sought to be added in para-10 of the plaint cannot be permitted along with related portions covering this matter as indicated above.
37. Therefore, the order under revision requires interference to the extent stated above.
38. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed-in-part and without costs. Consequently, the portions in the proposed amendment in para-7-A indicated below are not permitted to be amended and they are:
"As the plaintiffs came to know about the alleged relinquishment deed through the counter and written statement, their proposed relief of its cancellation is well within the limitation."
"Relief of Cancellation of document bearing No:51/64 of S.R.O., Nellore dated 25-07-1964 is valued on its value of Rs.14,500/- and a Court Fee of Rs.1,056/- is paid on the plaint U/s.37(1)(a) of A.P.Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act."
"Thus, the total Court Fee paid on the plaint is Rs.200/- + 1,056/- = 1,256/- and the same is deposited in the account of this Hon,ble Court in lieu of Court Fee Stamps."
(Already, Rs.200/- was deposited and ther emaining Rs.1,056/- will be deposited after allowing this I.A. and the Plaintiffs undertake to deposit the same)."
"3) In the plaint, in the Relief Portion at Para No.10, after the relief (iii), add the following relief as "(iv)".
"(iv) Cancelling the document styled as registered relinquishment deed alleged to have been executed by the 1st Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Defendant and his father dated 25-
07-1964 under Doc.No.51/1964 of S.R.O., Nellore as the same is the product of forgery brought into existence by the 1st Defendant".
20
39. Other part of para-7-A of the proposed amendment of the plaint is permitted and to that extent, the respondents shall carry out amendment of the plaint. The trial Court shall permit the amendment only to the extent stated above, to be carried out. Thereafter, the petitioners shall be given a liberty to present their additional written statement.
40. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this revision petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J Dt:30.08.2019 Rns 21 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4417 OF 2016 Date:30.08.2019 Rns