Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Mad) 91

2011 (2) CTC 28
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. NAGAMUTHU
N. Lalitha & Others
Versus
Manujothi Ashramam, rep by its President & Others
C.R.P.(PD) No.1421 of 2005 & C.M.P.Nos.17166 of 2005 & 2309 of 2006
Decided on : 07-01-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R. Viduthalai, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents:R1 - A.R. Nixon, Advocate, R2 & R3 - died; No, Appearance.

The jurisdiction to allow amendments is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously to serve the cause of justice. Amendments changing the character of the Suit and introducing time-barred claims should not be allowed.

Headnote:
Amendment - Suit Character Change - Limitation - [FACT OF THE CASE] The Plaintiff, an Ashram, claimed ownership of a property sold by the Defendants. The Plaintiff sought to amend the Plaint to include a declaration of title and injunction. The Defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that it would change the character of the Suit and introduce a time-barred claim. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court found that the proposed amendments would change the nature and character of the Suit and introduce time-barred claims. The Court held that the amendments were impermissible and would result in a futile exercise. [ISSUES] The issues involved the nature of the proposed amendments, their impact on the Suit, and the question of limitation. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court held that amendments changing the character of the Suit and introducing time-barred claims should not be allowed. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction to allow amendments is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously to serve the cause of justice. [FINAL DECISION] The Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the order permitting the amendment. The trial of the Suit was directed to be expedited. The Court instructed the trial court to decide the issues independently based on the evidence presented. No costs were awarded.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The amendment power is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously to serve the cause of justice; amendments changing the character of the suit or introducing time-barred claims should not be allowed. [21000615500023] - Amendments raising a declaration of title and injunction in a suit lacking a described property schedule and possession claim can alter the nature of the suit and may be impermissible. [21000615500015][21000615500017][21000615500018] - Limitation can bar proposed amendments; if the new relief is time-barred under relevant limitation provisions, the amendment should not be allowed. [21000615500019][21000615500024] - The court should consider factors such as whether amendment is necessary for just adjudication, bonafide, prejudice, and whether refusing amendment would cause injustice or require a new suit. (Rationale drawn from cited judgments and principles in the judgment) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - For this case, the revision petition was allowed, and the order permitting amendment was set aside to expedite trial, with directions to decide issues independently based on evidence. [21000615500027]

How to determine whether amendments to pleadings change the character of the suit?

What is the role of limitation in allowing amendments to pleadings?

What are the criteria for exercising discretionary power to allow or disallow amendments to pleadings?

JUDGMENT :-

1. The Petitioners are the Defendants 3 to 9 in O.S. No. 18 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram. The First Respondent is the Plaintiff and the Respondents 2 and 3 are the Defendants 1 and 2 in the said Suit.

2. The Plaintiff is an Ashram. The Plaintiff claims that it owns the landed property comprised in S.No. 165/2 at Rajakilpakkam village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District measuring 5.02 cents. One. Mr.R.P. Lawrie was the founder President of the Ashram. He had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the First Defendant on 17.10.1973. Exercising his power under the said document, the First Defendant subsequently, executed two Sale Deeds [Document Nos. 1705 of 1983 and 1704 of 1983] on 06.5.1983 and 9.5.1983 respectively thereby, selling the above said property to one Mr. Nataraja Iyer and the Second Defendant herein. An extent of two acres was sold to Mr. Nataraja Iyer and the remaining extent was sold to the Second Defendant. Mr. Lawrie died on 24.2.1989

3. It appears that the First Defendant sold away a portion of the property purchased by her to the legal representatives of Mr. Nataraja Iyer. Mr. Nataraja Iyer also passed away. Admittedly, the Defendants 3 to 9 are the legal representatives of Mr. Nataraja Iyer. Thus, according to the Defendants 3 to 9, the entire extent of the above said land is in the possession and enjoyment of them.

4. While so, the said land was sought to be taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act. A Notification was issued in this regard by the Competent Authority which culminated in a final order dated 09.03.1990 by proceedings in Rc.2948/86C dated 09.03.1990, under which the land in question and other lands were declared as surplus and they were acquired in favour of the Government under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act.

5. The order of the Competent Authority dated 09.03.1990 was challenged by the Defendants 3 to 9 by way of an Appeal before the Commissioner as per the provisions of the Act on the ground that the lands were all agricultural lands and therefore, they would not fall within the ambit of the Act. The said contention of the Defendants 3 to 9 was accepted by the Appellate Authority and accordingly the Appellate Authority passed an order on 17.06.1998 thereby setting aside the order of the Competent Authority dated 09.03.1990.

6. Thereafter, the First Respondent herein/Plaintiff filed W.P.No. 17839 of 1999 before this Court seeking to set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 17.06.1998. That Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 05.11.1999. As against the same, the Plaintiff herein filed an Appeal in W.A. No. 2301 of 1999, which came to be dismissed on 11.1.2000

7. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the present Suit in O.S. No.18 of 2000 with the following prayer:

(a) for declaration declaring that no right, title and interest is conveyed under Doct. No. 1705/83 dated 6.5.1983;

(b) for declaration, declaring that no right, title and interest is conveyed under Doct. No. 1704/83 dated 9.5.1983;

(d) grant such further or other reliefs as Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

8. In the Plaint, it is averred that the Sale Deeds in question were executed without the consent of the Plaintiff by the Power of Attorney. To be precise, in paragraph 24 of the Plaint, it is states as follows:

“The Plaintiff submits that since the sale as effected by the Power of Attorney, the First Defendant herein is not ratified, the Plaintiff need not seek a declaration that the Sale Deed is null and void, since the Sale Deed itself is not valid one, in view of the failure to seek ratification from the Ashram for whose behalf the property is held in trust and the Defendants 8 and 9 are added to have effective decree, who are subsequent purchaser and Defendants 3 to 7 are also added since they are subsequent purchaser and also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document