Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.S.SHRIVASTAVA
Vettikuti Naydamma - Appellant
Versus
Mupparaju Madhusudhana Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 03-18-95
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - CANCELLATION OF GIFT DEEDS - UNDUE INFLUENCE AND COERCION - MATERIAL ALTERATIONS AND DISPUTED SIGNATURE - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES' RIGHT TO RAISE PLEAS - REVISION AGAINST REJECTION OF AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought cancellation of gift deeds executed by the deceased-1st plaintiff in favor of the defendant, alleging undue influence and coercion. The deceased-1st plaintiff claimed he was made to nod his head before the Sub-Registrar and did not sign the gift deeds. After the defendant filed evidence, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to include allegations of material alterations in the gift deeds and disputed signatures. The trial court rejected the amendment application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action or a new case. The deceased-1st plaintiff had sought cancellation of the gift deeds on the ground of undue influence and coercion, and the amendment merely added an additional plea that was available to him at the time of institution of the suits. The court also noted that the original gift deeds were in the possession of the defendant and were filed after the closure of the evidence of the original plaintiffs.
Issues: 1. Whether the proposed amendment introduced a new cause of action or a new case. 2. Whether the legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff could raise the plea of material alterations and disputed signatures. 3. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on precedents holding that an amendment does not constitute a new cause of action if it amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts. The court found that the amendment in this case did not change the nature of the suit, as it was still seeking cancellation of the gift deeds on the ground of undue influence and coercion. 2. The court held that the legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff were entitled to raise all pleas which the deceased party had or could have raised, except those which were personal to him. 3. The court found that the trial court had erred in concluding that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. The court noted that the amendment was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties and that the defendant would be entitled to costs for any inconvenience or expense caused by the amendment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and allowed the applications for amendment in question, subject to payment of costs to the defendant. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the suits at an earliest convenience after giving proper and reasonable time to both parties to lead evidence in view of the amendment of the pleadings.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in this revision are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 19 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla
( 2 ) THIS revision shall also dispose of the Civil revision Petitions No. 2164 and 2167 of1995 because of commonality of question of law and similarity of facts.
( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to these revisions, in brief, are that:- the deceased-1 st plaintiff was the husband of thedeceased-2nd plaintiff The deceased-1 st plaintiff was the owner of the suit properties. He filed O. S. Nos. 18,19 and 20 of 1985 against separate defendant in these suits for cancellation of the gift deeds in respect of the suit properties alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant on the ground that he suffered a paralysis attack some time in the month of December, 1985 and became physically handicapped and lost his speech. At that time he was staying alone in his house because the 2nd plaintiff since deceased had abandoned him about thirteen years back and had started living with the defendant. The defendant with the help of his brothers, parents and the 2nd plaintiff since deceased admitted him in Sujata Nursing Home at Nidubrolu for treatment where he remained for about two months. But he could not recover from the illness. He was then removed by them to their village Doppalapudi against his wish and was confined in their house. He was robbed of his cash and belongings. Later he was removed to Chebrolu thrice and every time a document styled as gift deed was got executed by him on 18-2-1984, 2-7-1984 and 27-10-1984infavour of the defendant of O. S. Nos. 18,20 and 19 of 1985 respectively. He was made to nod his head before the Sub-Registrar at the relevant times. He was thereafter abandoned by the defendant and his brothers and parents. Later on, he was shifted to his native place gollamudipadu and with the help of his brothers obtained the certified copy of the gift deeds alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant of each case. On obtaining the certified copy of the gift deeds, the contents were read over to him, which contents were absolutely false and he had never gifted his property in suits to the defendant. The gift deeds are sham and void having been obtained by exercise of undue influence and coercion. On these allegations, the plaintiffs since deceased sought a decree for declaration that the gift deeds should be cancelled.
( 4 ) THE defendant in each case denied the plaint all egations specifically in toto. The parties went to trial. After recording of part evidence of the defendant, the present petitioners, whose names have been substituted in place of the deceased plaintiffs, on the strength of a will, moved an applicadon in each suit for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the during the pendency of the suits all the original gift deeds had been filed and with the permission of the court the petitioners have obtained the photographs of the alleged signature of the 1 st plaintiff since deceased on the gift deeds and gotit compared by the hand writing expert from the admitted signature and came to know that the signatures alleged to have been obtained by the deceased 1 st plaintiff attrjetime of registration of the gift deeds do not belong to him. There are certain alterations in the original gift deeds and, therefore, they sought the following amendment incorporated in each plaint. "there are material alterations in the original gift deeds alleged to have been executed by the 1st plaintiff The signatures alleged to have been signed by the 1 st plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration on the back of the document do not tally with the admitted signature of the 1st plaintiff. This clearly shows that the 1 st plaintiff has not signed the said gift deeds before the sub-Registrar at the time of registration and on some other sheets of the said gift deeds. As such the above said gift deeds are not valid one and was not properly
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
