SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 3708

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Mari & Another
Versus
K. Subramani
C.R.P.(PD).No.2934 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On : 31-10-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:I.C. Vasudevan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B. Kumarasamy, Advocate.

An amendment that defeats a legal right accrued to the opposite party after the commencement of the trial cannot be entertained.

Headnote:

Amendment - Recovery of Money - Transfer of Property Act - Section 58(f) - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants, who had borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000 and deposited a title deed as security. The defendants denied the amount borrowed and claimed to have repaid a major portion, leaving a balance of Rs.4,000. They also argued that the suit was barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the amendment to change the place of deposit of the title deed after the commencement of the trial would defeat the legal right accrued to the defendants. It held that such an amendment cannot be entertained after the trial has commenced.

Issues: Whether the amendment to change the place of deposit of the title deed could be allowed? Whether the application for amendment of the plaint could be entertained after the commencement of the trial?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment allowed by the lower court would defeat the legal right accrued to the defendants after the commencement of the trial, especially when no document prior to the period of filing the suit is available with regard to the place of deposit of the title deed.

Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Judgment :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the order dated 27.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.227 of 2009 in O.S.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, allowing the application filed by the respondent herein to amend the plaint.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District as against the petitioners herein/defendants for recovery of money.

4. It is the case of the respondent herein/plaintiff that the petitioners herein/defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/-from him on 22.05.1996 on execution of promissory note. Apart from executing a promissory note, the petitioners herein/defendants have also deposited a title deed registered as Doc.No.1026/93 in respect of a property owned by them, as security, for the due repayment of the said loan amount, at Karaliyam Village. Since the petitioners herein/defendants have failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed the present suit in O.S.No.26 of 2006 for recovery of money. Though the loan was availed in the year 1996, the suit was filed in the year 2005. But, in the plaint, it has been stated that since ten years time was fixed under the pro-note to repay the loan amount, the suit is not barred by limitation.

5. The case of the respondent herein/plaintiff was resisted by the petitioners herein/defendants by filing written statement denying the averment made in the plaint that they had received a sum of Rs.75,000/-as a loan from the respondent/plaintiff. It is the specific defence of the petitioners/defendants that they have received only a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff and they have also paid major portion of principal and interest amount, leaving a balance of Rs.4,000/-as outstanding. Further, when they requested the respondent/plaintiff to return the title deed/settlement deed which was given by them on the date of availing loan, the respondent/plaintiff informed them that he had misplaced the document and he would trace out the title deed/settlement deed and return to them. Thereafter, on several occasions, the petitioners/defendants made requests to return the title deed/settlement deed, but the respondent/plaintiff has not come forward to return the title deed/settlement deed. But, on the contrary, with an intention to grab the property, now with false allegation, the present suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

6. It is further defence of the petitioners/defendants that the document was deposited by them in Karaliyam Village, which is not a notified place, as required under Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act. Based on the deposit of title deed/settlement deed made in the Karaliyam Village, the respondent/plaintiff can not seek for any relief as against the petitioners/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for recovery of money within a period of three years from the date of execution of Promissory Note, whereas the present suit has been filed after 10 years from the date of execution of the promissory note. Hence, the suit is hit by limitation. Thus, the petitioners/defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. After the commencement of the trial, the respondent/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. When the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, the respondent/plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.303 of 2007 seeking to amend the plaint with regard to the place of deposit of title deed to the effect that the petitioners/defendants had received the loan amount at Karaliyam Village and deposited the title deed/settlement deed at Sathyamangalam Town. But, the said application was opposed by the petitioners/defendants stating that after the commencement of the trial, the place of cause of a
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top