The amendment of pleadings in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to include a declaration of title and damages is not maintainable as it would change the nature and character of the suit.

1. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2, 5, 20, 21, 41, 43, 44, 46, 51, 52, 60 and 66 in the suit. The respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The other respondents 5 to 97 are the other defendants in the suit.

2. The revision petitioners filed the above civil revision petition challenging the fair and final order in I.A.No.545 of 2009 in O.S.No.74 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court No.1), Erode.

3. The respondents 1 to 4/ plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.716 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Erode which was subsequently transferred to the file of District Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Erode and the suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.74 of 2007 seeking the relief of recovery of possession and for damages under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The petitioners herein had filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. The respondents/ plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.545 of 2009 seeking for amendment of the pleadings by including the relief of declaration of title to the suit property. The petitioners filed their counter on various grounds.

4. According to the petitioners, if the amendment application is allowed, the very nature of the suit would be changed. Further, the amendment sought for is barred by limitation. The petitioners also contended that the amendment of the plaint in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act with one of a regular suit is per se not maintainable, as the scope of enquiry and evidence in both the type of suits are entirely different. According to the petitioners, the proposed amendment is not permissible under law.

5. The trial Court after taking into consideration the case of both sides allowed the application for amendment. Aggrieved over the fair and final order of the trial Court, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that if the amendment application is allowed, the very nature of the suit would be changed, since the respondents 1 to 4/ plaintiffs have filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned counsel also contended that the amendment of the plaint in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act with one of a regular suit is per se not maintainable, as the scope of enquiry and evidence in both the type of suits are entirely different. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) 1956 Hyderabad 170 [Gokam Chinna Nagaiah Vs. Nagaram Baliga and others] wherein it has been held that a distinction has to be drawn between a suit based upon possessory title and a suit under Section 9 Specific Relief Act. In the former case the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree only where the plaintiff's possession was sufficient proof to his title while in the latter case the Court has merely to see whether the plaintiff was in possession six months prior to the date of the suit. Where a plaintiff sue for possession on the basis of title and fails to establish title he cannot be granted a decree for possession under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. It would not be in the interests of justice to grant such a decree to the plaintiff as the Court having gone into the question of title and given a finding, if simple decree for possession were given, the defendants would necessarily have to go and establish his title over again.

(ii) (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 664 [Sanjay Kumar Pandey and others Vs. Gulbahar Seikh and others] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the enquiry in the suit under Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of the institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of the Act is to file a