Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

During the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Judge, the petitioners amended their plaint by incorporating paragraph 12(a) alleging that Panchkari Pal did not have any right or title in respect of the suit property and he did not sell the suit property to Renukarani, the latter was never in possession of the suit property and the deed of rectification dated June 18, 2001 executed by Renukarani in favour of the respondents is fraudulent and void. The petitioners, however, did not incorporate any relief in the pliant challenging the validity of the said deed of rectification dated June 18, 2001 or the deed of conveyance dated October 29, 1999 executed by Renukarani.

After appreciating the evidence adduced by the respective parties, in the judgment dated February 26, 2009 the learned trial Judge found that by virtue of a partition dated May 30, 1969 between Panchkari Pal and his brother Satkari Pal, the suit property was allotted Panchkari Pal, exclusively and the plaintiffs, the present petitioners, could not establish their right, title or interest in respect of the suit property or that they are in possession of the suit property. By a decree dated February 26, 2009 the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said decree by filing the appeal, being Title Appeal No. 3 of 2009, before the learned first appellate Court below. In the said appeal, on November 11, 2009 the petitioners filed an application for further amendment of their plaint, seeking to incorporate the averments in the plaint that the deed of conveyance executed by Panchkari Pal in favour of Renukarani, conferred no title on Renukarani and consequently the deed of conveyance executed by the latter in favour of the opposite party no. 2 on October 02, 1999 is void ab initio, fraudulent and not binding upon them and that after the learned trial Judge passed the decree dated February 26, 2009, the respondents forcibly encroached on the suit property and started to build a two storied building at the suit property. The petitioners also prayed for amendment in the relief portion of the plaint, by incorporating certain relief to the effect that the deed of conveyance and the deed of rectification executed and registered on October 29, 1999 by Renukarani in favour of the respondent no. 2 is fraudulent, void ab initio and not operative, the deed of rectification dated June 18, 2001 by Renukarani in favour of the respondent no. 2 is fake, fraudulent, bad in the eye of law, void ab- initio and not operative. The petitioners also sought to incorporate the relief for recovery of possession of the suit property and to amend the schedule "A" to the plaint by including the incomplete two storied building. The respondents opposed the said amendment application. By judgment and order dated September 15, 2011 the learned first appellate Court, however, held that the facts sought to be incorporated the petitioners by way of amendment of the plaint are all subsequent facts, allowed the said amendment application and remanded the entire suit to the learned trial Judge for a fresh trial with a direction to frame additional issue, if any, in view of the amended portion of the plaint and decide the suit afresh. The learned appellate Court below allowed the respondents to file additional written statement and granted liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence before the learned trial Judge. The respondents challenged the said order dated September 15, 2011 passed by the learned appellate Court below by filing the first miscellaneous appeal before this Court.

After considering the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned advocates of the respective parties, by the judgment and order dated May 13, 2016 this Court held that since the learned appellate Court below decided the amendment application filed by the present petitioners at the time of hearing of the appeal, in view of Section 105(1) of the Code the present respondents, as the appellants could challenge the order allowing the amendment of plaint in the said appeal. This Court found that in the written statement filed in the suit in July, 2002 the respondents had made the averments about the deed of conveyance dated October 29, 1999 executed by Renukarani transferring the suit property to them, as also the execution of the deed of rectification dated June 10, 2001 and based on the said deeds they obtained their names recorded in the revenue records in respect of the suit property, but during pendency of the suit before the learned trial Judge, the petitioners did not seek to amend their plaint to claim any relief challenging the title of Renukarani in respect of the suit property on the basis of her conveyance dated July 15, 1961 executed by Panchkari Pal or the conveyance dated October 29, 1999 or the deed of rectification dated June 18, 2001 executed by Renukarani or the recording of the names of the defendants respondents in respect of the suit property in the revenue records. Considering all the facts of the case, this Court concluded that the prayers of the petitioners made on November 11, 2009 before the learned first appellate Court to claim relief seeking to challenge, either the said deed of conveyance dated October 29, 1999 or the deed of rectification dated June 18, 2001 in favour of the respondents and the recording of the names of the respondents in the revenue records in respect of the suit property were all barred by Articles 113 and 58 of the Limitation Act and the learned first appellate Court fell into an error of law in allowing the application of the petitioners to incorporate the averments and relief in their plaint to challenge the said deed of conveyance dated October 29, 1999 and the deed of rectification dated June 18, 2001 both executed by the said Renukarani in favour of the defendants respondents, the recording of the names of the defendants fraudulently obtained in the revenue records, in respect of the suit property. This Court held that the said relief sought to be incorporated by the petitioners challenging the deed of conveyance and deed of rectification executed by Renukarani and the recording of the names of the respondents in the revenue records were not all based on any subsequent fact arisen after the passing of the trial Court decree. While arriving at such conclusion, this Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers and Narayanswami and Sons and Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 (para-63) cited on behalf of the respondents, where it was held that the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. Considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaja and Anr. vs. Yellappa and Ors reported in AIR 2004 SC 4102 relied upon by the present petitioners, this Court held in the said case the Supreme Court allowed the amendment of plaint, as there was an arguable question whether the limitation applicable for seeking relief of declaration on the facts of the said case fell under Article 58 or Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act which had to be decided at the trial of the suit, whereas in the present case, there is no doubt as on the date of filing of the amendment application by the present petitioners the relief sought to be incorporated by them challenging the said deed of conveyance and deed of rectification executed by Renukarani in favour of the respondents and the recording the names of the respondents, in respect of the suit property, in the revenue records before the learned first appellate Court were all hopelessly barred by both the Articles 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the said decision is of no assistance to the petitioners. This Court found that although in the amendment application the present petitioners claimed that by the proposed amendments they sought to incorporate the events which had taken place subsequent to the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge, but in the schedule of the amendment application, the present petitioners also sought to incorporate the averments and prayers to challenge the said deed of conveyance and the deed of rectification executed by Renukarani in favour of the respondents and recording of the names of the respondents in respect of the suit property in the revenue records. Therefore, this Court held that the prayers of the present petitioners to amend their plaint to incorporate averments and reliefs to challenge the title of Renukarani in respect of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated July 15, 1961 executed by Panchkari Pal, the said deed of conveyance and deed of rectification executed by Renukarani in favour of the present respondents and the recording of the names of the respondent in the revenue records without any explanation for such long delay in claiming such relief lacked bona fide.

Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, learned advocate appearing in support of the present review application submitted that during pendency of the suit before the learned trial Judge, the petitioners had already amended the plaint by incorporating paragraph 12(a) alleging that after execution of the deed of partition dated May 13, 1969, Panchkari Pal did not sell the suit property to Renukarani who was never in possession of the suit property and the deed of rectification dated June 18, 2001 executed by Renukarani in favour of the defendants is fraudulent and void and the defendants cannot claim benefit of the said deed of rectification. Therefore, according to him, by no means the amendment of the plaint as was allowed by the learned first appellate Court in this case to incorporate the averments and the relief to challenge registered deed of conveyance dated October 29, 1999 and the deed of rectification dated June 18, 2001 executed by the said Renukarani in favour of the defendants and the recording the names of the defendants in respect of the suit property, in the revenue records could not be set aside by this Court on the ground that the said relief were already barred by the laws of limitation as on the date of the amendment application. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Kumar vs. Mangal Sain Wadhera reported in AIR 1985 SC 817, where it was held that where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action or raises a new case but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaja and Anr. vs. Yellappa reported in AIR 2004 SC 4102. It was urged that in any event, in view of the averments already incorporated in paragraph 12A of the plaint before the trial of the suit, under the expression "other relief" as contained in Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code, even without amending the relief portion of the plaint the learned Courts below could grant relief to the present petitioner declaring the said deeds executed by Renukarani in favour of the respondents and the recording of the names of the respondents, in respect of the suit property, in the revenue records being void, ab- initio and not operative. In this regard, Mr. Ghosh cited a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court reported in Chennaru Naghbhusan Rao vs. M. Rama Rao & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 Orissa 76. It was strongly urged on behalf of the petitioners that in the instant case, the said order dated May 13, 2016 passed by this Court setting aside the order dated September 15, 2011 passed by the learned first appellate Court in so far as the same allowed the amendment of the plaint, both in the body and the relief portion, challenging the said registered deed of conveyance dated October 29, 1999 and the deed of rectification dated June 11, 2001 executed by Renukarani in favour of the respondents and the recording the respondents' names, in respect of the suit property, in the revenue records is vitiated by an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record.