The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment seeking to cancel or set aside a sale deed must comply with the limitation period prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, and if the proposed amendment is barred by limitation, it is impermissible.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 1.4.2004 made in I.A.No.936 of 2003 in O.S.No.244 of 1997 by the District Munsif, Manapparai.)

The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners.

2.The revision petitioners, claiming title to the suit property, seeking recovery of possession from the defendant, have filed the suit, alleging that the sale deed executed by the original owner of the suit property viz. Pakkir Mohammed, dated 16.6.1986, is not valid since the same was obtained by fraud, valuing the suit under Section 25-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act.

3.The defendant/respondent in this revision, admitting that the suit property originally belonged to the first plaintiff's husband, viz. Pakkir Mohammed, as his self acquired property, had opposed the suit, that by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 16.6.1986, executed by the said Pakkir Mohammed the first plaintiff's husband, he became the absolute owner of the suit property, that the suit filed, without the prayer for cancellation of the said sale deed, is not maintainable and that the suit is barred by limitation, with among other grounds.

4.The revision petitioners, though filed the suit in the year 1997, despite the objection raised by the defendant in the written statement about the maintainability of the suit, have not taken any step, till 2003, to include the prayer for cancellation or setting aside the sale deed, dated 16.6.1986. Only in the year 2003, the revision petitioners have filed I.A.No.936 of 2003, seeking permission of the Court, to amend the plaint, in order to include a prayer, to set aside or cancel the sale deed, dated 16.6.1986. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, no reason is offered, why the proposed amendment, which was available, even on the date of the filing of the suit, was omitted to be included, and under what circumstances, now, the plaintiffs are constrained to seek the relief of cancellation of the sale deed, etc.

5.The respondent/defendant, in his counter, would contend, that despite the plaint was returned, by the trial Court, directing the plaintiffs to seek a relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 16.6.1986, it was not accepted by the plaintiffs, and therefore, the prayer, now sought for, by the proposed amendment, which is clearly barred by limitation, is not permissible, the further fact being that the right accrued in favour of the defendant, on the basis of the limitation, cannot be taken away by the proposed amendment.

6.The learned District Munsif, Manapparai, considering the rival contentions of the parties, as well as the law declared by the Courts, as brought to her knowledge by either counsel, came to the conclusion that the proposed amendment is clearly barred by limitation, that if this kind of prayer, which is barred by limitation, is allowed to be carried out in the plaint, certainly, that will cause irreparable loss to the defendant, since the defendant had accrued some right, by the bar imposed under the Limitation Act, which cannot be nullified by the proposed amendment. Thus, taking the view, the petition for amendment was dismissed, as per the order dated 1.4.2004, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

7.Heard both.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that only on the ground that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation, the substantial right claimed by the plaintiffs, by the proposed amendment, cannot be negatived, at the threshold, and if at all, subject to limitation, which could be decided at the time of the trial, the amendment application ought to have been allowed, which was not done by the trial Court, and therefore, the revision deserves acceptance, since the proposed amendment is not going to change the character of the suit, in view of the allegations already available, questioning the sale deed, which is sought to be now cancelled or