IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to pleadings introducing time-barred claims are impermissible, especially when sought after significant delay without sufficient explanation.

JUDGMENT :

C.Jayachandran, J.

The petitioner herein is the defendant in Ext.P4 suit, O.S. No.622/2011, pending before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order, which allowed an amendment to incorporate a relief for re-conveyance of the schedule property by specific performance of an agreement, on the ground that the relief stood barred by the law of limitation as on the date on which the amendment was sought for by Ext.P6 application. According to the petitioner/defendant, Ext.P9 is a cryptic order, with illogical reasoning and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as regards permissibility of an amendment to incorporate a time barred relief.

2. Heard Sri.Ayyappan Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The nature and character of Ext.P1 sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is the issue involved in the suit. The subject suit was filed for a declaration that Ext.P1 sale deed dated 22.04.2009 is, in effect, a mortgage deed only. The plaintiff also sought for a prayer allowing her to pay off the mortgage amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and to redeem and recover possession of the plaint schedule property. A permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought for, as the second prayer.

4. The plaintiff averred that the defendant is a money lender and that the plaintiff approached him for a loan of Rs.13,00,000/- in connection with the management of a school run by the plaintiff’s sister; that the defendant demanded plaint schedule property to be offered as security; though the defendant initially agreed for execution of a mortgage deed, he changed his stand and insisted for a sale deed on the date fixed for execution of the document, with a specific undertaking that the defendant would re-convey the property when the loan amount is paid off, for which purpose, another deed was also executed on the same date. This Court may pause here for a moment to point out that the details of the said deed claimed to have been executed on the same date was not pleaded in the plaint. However, the same was produced along with the plaint as item no.2 to the list of documents, wherein it is seen referred to as a consent deed. It is essentially on the basis of the afore referred pleadings that the reliefs cited above were sought for. The suit was resisted by the defendant, contending that Ext.P1 is an absolute sale deed. As regards the execution of the consent deed on the date on which the sale deed was executed, the contention of the defendant is to the following effect:

“15. It is submitted that the sale deed though was proposed to be executed on 22.04.2009, the original of the title deed was not shown or rather handed over to this defendant till 21.04.2009. Thus on the said date this defendant asked about the same so as to prepare sale deed and to get himself convinced about the non encumbrance. During the said time the plaintiff demanded for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs so as to clear of the debt pertaining to the property so as to collect back the original of her title deed, after clearing off the debt due to some private person. This defendant was reluctant to hand over funds as claimed, due to the reason that the above facts were not disclosed til the said moment. Thus the plaintiff insisted for the defendants signature in the blank stamp paper brought by her, so as to convince the said creditor and to get release of the said title deed. Thus this defendant was caused to put signature in the blank stamp paper. After the execution of the sale deed and soon after the payment of sale consideration, this defendant demanded for the return of the consideration, this defendant demanded for the return of the said blank stamp paper, and then the plaintiff intimated that the same would be returned after settling the creditor. There after the plaintiff intimated that the same was torned off. This defendant came to unde