Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
Krishnaveni – Appellant
Versus
Padmavathi – Respondent
CRP No. 1985 of 2026|CMP.No.8876 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.Kamatchi
For the Respondents: Ramesh Venkatachalapathy
An application to amend a suit prayer to declare a registered document null and void is subject to the limitation period prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and cannot be exempted by claiming the document is 'non est' under the Specific Relief Act.
Headnote:The petitioners sought to amend a suit prayer to include a declaration that a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2000 is null and void. The Trial Court dismissed the application as barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioners contended that since the document is non est in law under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the limitation period under Article 59 is not attracted. The primary issue was whether an application to amend a suit prayer to declare a registered document null and void, filed nine years after the suit's inception, is barred by limitation. The court reasoned that under Article 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for declaratory relief or cancelling an instrument is three years from when the right to sue accrues or facts become known. The court found that the respondents had already disclosed their title based on the sale deed in their 2016 written statement, making the 2025 amendment application belated. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the dismissal of an amendment application seeking to declare a sale deed null and void. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention regarding the non-applicability of limitation to documents that are non est in law. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. application of articles 58 and 59 of the limitation act to registered documents and the requirement of diligence in amendments. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit and limitation bars. (Para 9) |
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the Order and Decreetal Order dated 22.08.2025 made in IA No.7/2025 in O.S No.39/2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge (FTC), Vellore, Vellore District.
ORDER
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Additional District Court (FTC), Vellore, Vellore District in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.39 of 2015.
2. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit seeking for amendment of the suit prayer to include the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 as null and void, has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that erroneously the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the application filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act 1963. She would submit that Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963 will not apply to the case of the petitioners, since as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the document which is sought to be declared as null and void is non est in law. Hence Article 59 does not get attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities in support of her contention that the application filed by the petitioners seeking for amendment of the suit prayer even though filed belatedly is still maintainable and is not barred by limitation.
a) Unni and Anr. Vs. Kunchi Amma and Ors. reported in 1891 ILR 14MAD26
b) Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Birbal & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) Supreme 69.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would place reliance on the authorities which were also relied upon by the Trial Court for dismissing the application filed by the petitioners on the ground of limitation.
Discussion:
5. The following are the undisputed facts:
a) The sale deed dated 22.06.2000 which is sought to be declared as null and void by the petitioners through the amendment application is a registered document.
b) The said sale deed was executed by grand father of the petitioners.
c) The petitioner has not challenged the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 through a Court of law.
d) The suit was filed by the petitioners in the year of 2016.
e) In the written statement filed by the respondents in the suit O.S.No.39 of 2015, the defendants have traced their title from the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 which is sought to be declared as null and void by the petitioners through the amendment application.
f) The petitioners filed an amendment application through I.A.No.7 of 2025 after lapse of more than 9 years from the date of filing of the suit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted before this Court that Article 59 of the Limitation Act does to apply to the case of the petitioners, since according to the petitioners, the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 is non est in the eye of law. She contended that since it is non est in the eye of law as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, Article 59 of the Limitation Act will not get attracted. In the impugned order, the trial Court has relied upon two authorities which have also been placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents for dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. In both the decisions, it has been made clear that a party who is seeking
