Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Sumithra Bhai – Appellant
Versus
K. Venkopa Rao – Respondent
Key Points: - The amendment to add relief of declaration in a possession suit does not change the suit’s character and main relief governs limitation (!) (!) . - When the main relief is possession (12-year period under Article 65), the declaration as ancillary relief follows the same limitation or is governed by the relief it seeks; the court may allow amendment even if time-barred for declaration if justice requires (!) (!) (!) . - The court approved amendment at appellate stage to add declaration, directing resolution within four months, affirming that amendments serve justice and do not necessarily bar relief (!) (!) . - In a suit for possession based on title (gift deed) where the main relief is possession, limitation for declaration should not bar the amendment if the relief for possession governs and the declaration is ancillary (!) (!) . - The appellate court’s rejection of the amendment can be reviewed if amendment serves justice; courts have liberal approach to amendments at appellate stage to achieve substantive justice (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to appellate court's order for amendment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on validity of amendment regarding limitation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the nature of amendment. (Para 5 , 6 , 11) |
| 4. ratio on limitations applicable to amendments. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 5. general principles about amendments in appeals. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. final order allowing the amendment. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order of the appellate court rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment seeking relief of declaration, the present revision has been filed.
2. The suit has been filed originally by the revision petitioner for eviction claiming that the defendant/respondent is the tenant in the shop premises. Written statement was filed by the tenant on 10.04.2015 denying the title. Thereafter, it appears that the suit was dismissed on 14.10.2020. While dismissing the suit, the Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff is claiming title on the basis of the gift deed said to have been executed by one Vittal Rao had ommitted to seek relief of declaration. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for a
An amendment sought for a declaration in a possession suit does not change its character; limitation for possession applies over declaration, allowing amendments at the appellate stage serves justice....
The court established that the limitation for suits claiming declaration and possession of immovable property is 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, countering the trial court's applicat....
The court upheld that an amendment to include a declaration of title in a suit is barred by the limitation period defined in Article 58 of the Limitation Act if filed significantly after the right to....
The suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, allowing 12 years from the date of adverse possession, not Article 58.
At the stage of considering an amendment of the plaint, the court is not required to inquire into the genuineness of the pleadings but to determine if the amendment would help in determining the real....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
