Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Shri Pandurang Krishna Gaudo & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
M/s Madachem Bat Mines Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 649 of 2017
Decided On : 13-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shri Prasheen Lotlikar
For the Respondent: Shri E. Dias
The proposed amendment must be necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit, and the test for allowing any amendment is whether the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit.
Headnote:
Amendment - Agricultural Tenancy Dispute - Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act) - Section 18(c)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioners, seeking to restrain them from interfering with the possession of the suit property. The respondent sought to amend the plaint to include the deletion of the name of the now deceased Pandurang Gaudo as a tenant from another property, which was not the subject matter of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court allowed the amendment, finding it relevant as it was based on a subsequent event. However, the High Court held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit, as the disputed property was distinct from the property from which the name of Pandurang Gaudo was deleted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed amendment to include the deletion of the name of Pandurang Gaudo as a tenant from another property was relevant to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit, as the disputed property was distinct from the property from which the name of Pandurang Gaudo was deleted. The court emphasized that the test for allowing any amendment is whether the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment and dismissed the application for amendment.
Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent, waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. The respondent has filed a suit, against now deceased, Pandurang Gaudo, who is the predecessor of the petitioners. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction, restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of the respondent over the suit property, which is bearing Survey No. 96/1 of Village Pale of Bicholim Taluka of North Goa District.
3. The respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking addition of paragraphs 1(a), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 4(a) and 4 (b) as under:-
“1(a) The Applicant states that the suit property is surveyed under Survey No. 96/1 of Village Pale in Bicholim Taluka and was originally belonging to Late Shri Laxmikant Shantaram Surlekar and his wife alongwith another property surveyed under Survey No. 76/3 of the same village and both the properties were sold by said Late Shri Laxmikant Shantaram Surlekar and his wife to Mrs. Subhadra Ladu Gawas.
3(a) It is stated that the Respondent herein was claiming to be an Agricultural tenant of the original owner Late Shri Laxmikant Shantaram Surlekar in respect of both the properties as his name was figuring in the tenants column in respect of both the said properties, when factually he had no rights whatsoever.
3(b) It is stated that the suit property was purchased by the applicant from the said Mrs. Subhadra Ladu Gawas.
3(c) The Applicant states that the claim of the Respondent herein was joint claim of both properties against the original owner Late Shri Laxmikant Shantaram Surlekar and the said claim is bogus and is a sham without any justification and he never had any rights or interest in these properties and as such he has not pursued his claim in respect of Survey No. 76/3. The claim of P.K. Gawde in respect of suit property is also bogus and is sham, without any rights which was originally belonging to the same owner.
4(a) Notice was issued in respect of both the properties for purchase under Section 18(c) of the Agriculture Tenancy Act. The Applicants herein were not served with the said notice which facts have already been set out. As far as Survey No. 76/3 is concerned a notice was issued to the present owner i.e. Mrs. Subhadra Ladu Gawas was served in respect of the Survey No. 76/3 and upon receipt of the said notice the same was resisted by him and the claim of the Respondent herein of Tenancy as against Survey No. 76/3 was rejected and further even his name in the tenant's column was deleted and it stands deleted.
4(b) The Applicant crave leave to refer and rely on the old survey records and present survey records in respect of 76/3, besides records and proceedings in respect of Survey No. 76/3, u/s 18(c) and orders passed thereon.”
4. It was contended that the land Survey No. 96/1 (which is subject matter of the suit), as well as another land Survey No. 76/3 (which is not the subject matter of the suit), were originally belonging to late Laximan Shantaram Surlekar and his wife. Laximan Surlekar and his wife sold the aforesaid properties to Mrs. Subhadra Ladu Gawas. Land Survey No. 96/1 has been purchased by the respondent from Mrs. Subhadra Gawas. According to the respondent, now deceased, Pandurang Gaudo was claiming to be agricultural tenant in respect of both the properties, namely, Survey No. 96/1 and Survey No. 76/3. It was contended that there was a notice issued in respect of both the properties for purchase of the land under Section 18C of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act, for short) and by an order dated 02.07.1992, the name of now deceased, Pandurang Gaudo was deleted as tenant in respect of the land Survey No. 76/3. In short, by the proposed amendment, the respondent wants to bring on record, the fact that the name of now deceased, Pandurang Gaudo was deleted as tenant from the property bearing Survey No. 76/3.
5. The application for amendment was opposed by
