Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3879
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
M. Kumar
Versus
M. Mohankumar & Others
Application No. 1458 of 2013 in Civil Suit No. 873 of 2010
Decided On : 18-11-2013
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment seeking specific performance cannot be allowed after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
Headnote:
Amendment - Specific Performance - Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C - [Order XIV Rule 8, Order VI Rule 17] - The court discussed the amendment sought by the applicant to add the prayer for specific performance, the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance, and the principles governing the amendment of pleadings. The court held that the application for amendment was time-barred and dismissed the same.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and later sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer for specific performance, claiming an oral agreement with the respondents to sell the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of the alleged oral agreement and payments made, and that the amendment sought was time-barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the amendment sought, the existence of the oral agreement, and the applicability of the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment sought for specific performance was time-barred and could not relate back to the date of filing the suit to cure the defect of limitation, citing the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for amendment, finding it time-barred and not entitled to the relief of specific performance.
R. Subbiah, J.
1. This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint.
2. The applicant herein has originally filed the suit for the following reliefs:-
a) for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc., in any manner from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing No.43/55, Mc.Nicholes Road, Chetput, Chennai600 031 more fully described under the schedule to the plaint, except due process of law.
b) to direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.
3. It is the case of the applicant/plaintiff that the respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2 are the owners of the suit property bearing No.43/55, Mc.Nicholes Road, Chetput, Chennai-600 031. The 3rd respondent/D3 is the power of attorney of the respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2. Through one Vijayakumar who is a common friend of 1st respondent and the applicant, the suit property was taken on lease by the applicant during January-2007. The 3rd respondent, power of attorney, negotiated the terms and conditions to let out the suit property to the applicant/plaintiff. The rent was fixed as Rs.20,000/- per month and the period of lease commenced from 1st February, 2007. The applicant/plaintiff has also paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-towards advance amount and with all other usual terms and conditions, the applicant/plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property from 01.02.2007.
4. It is further case of the applicant/plaintiff that initially the applicant/plaintiff was paying the rent by way of cheque till August-2007 and thereafter, he was paying the rent by way of cash through the above said Vijayakumar, who is a common friend of the applicant and the respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2. The respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2 are permanently residing in Canada and the 1st respondent/D1 used to contact the applicant/plaintiff over phone and instruct to give the rent to the said Vijayakumar and upon such instructions, the plaintiff has been paying the rent by way of Cheque as well as cash as requested by the respondents 1 & 2. Since the suit building/property was in a bad condition, when the respondents 1 & 2 came to India in the month of August 2007, the applicant suggested that in the event of the respondents 1 & 2 giving a long lease for a minimum period of 10 years, the applicant was prepared to spend money for the improvement of the suit building and the same was agreed by the respondents 1 & 2 orally. Pursuant to the said oral agreement, the applicant paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in the month of August-2007. Thereafter, in the month of February2008, the respondents 1 & 2 contacted the applicant over phone and informed that they were willing to sell the suit property to the applicant for a sale consideration of Rs.3,80,00,000/- and they would execute the sale deed when they come to India. Pursuant to the willingness expressed by the respondents 1 & 2 to sell the suit property, the applicant paid a sum of Rs.25,50,000/-. That apart, the applicant has also spent a sum of Rs.30 lakhs for improvement of the suit property only on the assurance given by the respondents 1 & 2 to the effect that they would sell the property to him. But, after a long delay, when the respondents 1 & 2 came to India during February-2010, they demanded exaggerated value for the suit property than that of the amount originally agreed between the applicant and the respondents 1 & 2. However, the applicant agreed to increase the price to Rs.4.8 crores, but the respondents 1 & 2 refused to accept the said proposal and further refused to execute the sale deed. The respondents 1 & 2 prepared a Letter of Agreement dated 06.03.2010, wherein the respondents purposely failed to mention the sale consideration agreed by the applicant. Since the respondents have not mentioned the sale consideration, the applicant did not sign the said letter
