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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. RAVI, J
PERINGARA MALAYALA BHRAMANA SANGHOM NO.18 – Appellant
Versus
YAMMAR KULANGARA SREE MAHA GANAPATHY KSHETHRA SAMITHI NO. PTM/TC/265/14 – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 421 OF 2025 | OS NO.664 OF 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.HARIDAS, SHRI.BIJU HARIHARAN, SMT.SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW, SRI.P.C.SHIJIN, SMT.ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB, SMT.PRAJISHA O.K.
For the Respondents: SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA), SMT.ANJU SUSAN REJI

The court permits amendments for recovery of possession in the interest of justice when title has been established.

Headnote:The Court deliberated on an amendment application challenge in OP

(C) No. 421 of 2025 against an order dated 06.01.2025, concerning title and injunction in OS No. 664/2014. The petitioners sought amendment for recovery of possession based on the claim of title, previously rejected by the lower court due to timing issues. The ruling referenced Parameswaran Nambiar R.N. V. Neelakantan Nambiar, establishing that amendments in interests of justice may be permissible. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitioners to amend the court fee and relief portions of their plaint, emphasizing the right to recovery upon declaration of title. This original petition is allowed.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have challenged an order whereby an amendment application was rejected. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.664/2014 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla, which has been filed for declaration of title and injunction. It is submitted that during trial, there was a deposition to the effect that the plaintiff is not in possession. In the above circumstances, an amendment was sought for, for recovery of possession as a consequence to the declaration of title. The prayer has been rejected by the court below stating that it could have been sought for earlier. The counsel for the respondents submitted that even though the prayer portion is sought to be amended, there is no amendment sought for in the statement of facts narrated in the plaint and in the court fee portion. It is submitted that if the prayer for recovery is to be added necessarily the court fee payable would change. The counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Parameswaran Nambiar R.N. V. Neelakantan Nambiar (2026 KHC OnLine 1533), wherein this Court had permitted amendment in the interest of justice. That was a suit for title and the prayer for recovery was not included which could lead to an incongruous situation where no relief can be granted despite finding title in favour of the plaintiff. A like situation arises in this case also. However, objections raised by the respondents are also justified.

In the above circumstances, this original petition is allowed.

The petitioners shall file necessary application for amending the court fee portion. If such amendments are sought for, the same shall be considered along with the prayer for amendment of the relief portion by including the relief of recovery of possession, and allowed by the court below. The respondents shall be permitted to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and the trial shall proceed thereafter.

Sd/-

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