Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The amendment was sought and granted in respect of the payment of registration charges and stamp duty. No amendment was either sought or granted in respect of the decree for specific performance of the contract. The appeal was filed against that decree. Although the appeal was filed beyond a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment dt. 14-2-1978, no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved for the condonation of the delay. The court below held that the appeal was barred by time as the amendment in the decree did not relate to the decree for specific performance of the contract. It related to an ancillary matter i.e. the stamp duty and the registration charges. The appeal thus did not relate to that part of the decree which had been amended. The appellant thus could not derive any benefit from the amendment of the decree for the purposes of limitation for filing the appeal. Court below further repelled the appellant's contention that the suit having been valued at Rs. 19,000 the inclusion of stamp duty and registration charges in the decree increased its value for purposes of appeal to an amount exceeding Rs. 20,000 making the decree appealable to the High Court within ninety days and the appeal thus filed after the amendment of decree could be treated as filed within time. It held that the valuation for the purposes of appeal was only Rs. 19,000 and any wrong impression in that regard did not entitle the appellant to claim that the appeal had been filed within time.

11. The amendment in the instant case did not relate to the decree for specific performance of the contract. It related to the question of the payment of enhanced registration charges and stamp duty. The appeal did not relate to registration charges and stamp duty. It was directed against the decree for specific performance of the contract. Such an appeal could be filed even from the original decree which remained unaffected by the amendment made in the decree. The judgment itself was in favour of the defendant-appellant on the question of the payment of registration charges and stamp duty. The amendment in the decree had the effect of only making the decree consistent with the judgment as regards the payment of registration charges and stamp duty. Such an amendment did not enlarge the period of limitation or give a fresh starting point of limitation for the filing of the appeal. It is admitted that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation from the date of the judgment and the original decree. The appeal was accordingly clearly barred by time. See (Bohra) Gajedhar Singh v. Basant Lal (AIR J921 AH 60); Gulab v. Janki Kuer (AIR 1920 Pat 622) (FB); Mohammad Yasin Khan v. Mt. Hansa Bibi (AIR 1935 Oudh 461); Tincowri Haldar v. Nanigopal Mondal (AIR I960 Cal 258); and Harvilas Gajadhar Prasad v. Kanhaiyalal Parma Lal (AIR 1968 Madh Pra 72) Thanuvan Appukuttan v. P.N. Gopala Pillai (AIR 1969 Ker 183).

12. Learned counsel then submitted that the registration charges and the stamp duty related to the claim for specific performance and an issue was raised on that point, hence he could calculate the period of limitation from the date of the amended decree. The question for consideration, however, was whether the appeal filed against the decree for specific performance was within time. No amendment was made in that part of the decree. The time for filing the appeal against it accordingly commenced from the date of the decree prior to its amendment.