Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3359
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.Radha Rani, J
Smt.Ediga Sarabhamma and 2 others – Appellant
Versus
E.Venkatesh Goud – Respondent
I.A.No.2 of 2020 in A.S.No.83 of 2020 | A.S.No.83 of 2020 | C.C.No.691 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Ramana
For the Respondents: P. Ganga Rami Reddy
A court may grant a smaller relief included in a larger claimed relief under the Civil Procedure Code, but only if the pleadings and evidence already establish the necessary factual foundation. An amendment introducing a new claim that alters the nature of the suit or prejudices the defence is disallowed.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 7 - Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession - Prayer for partition - Whether trial court can grant relief of partition in absence of prayer - Court power to grant smaller relief which is included in larger relief claimed - Principle that relief flowed from same cause of action and avoids multiplicity of proceedings - (Paras 9, 14, 18, 24)
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16(3) - Legitimacy of children of void marriage - Rights in property - Children born of void marriages are entitled to share in parents' self-acquired and ancestral property equal to legitimate children - (Para 12)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Principles for allowing amendment - Amendment cannot be allowed if it changes nature of suit, introduces entirely new case, or deprives opposite party of valuable defence - Necessity of pleading existence of joint family property - (Paras 19, 25, 26)
(D) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10 to 12 - Wilful disobedience - Absence of signature of respondent on acts performed by agents - Respondent not liable for contempt where agent acted without specific knowledge or prior authorization - (Para 6 of Contempt Case section)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and damages for property, claiming exclusive ownership as legal heirs. Defendants, while admitting blood relation, contested the legitimacy of the marriage of their own mother and claimed rights via a Will. The trial court dismissed the suit for exclusive title but acknowledged the plaintiffs and defendants were co-owners under the relevant Hindu personal law. Appellants filed an appeal seeking to amend the prayer for partition, arguing that the court should grant the lesser relief of partition as a consequence of the co-ownership finding.
Findings of Court:
The court held that while courts have the discretion to grant lesser relief, it must be supported by pleadings and evidence. Here, the absence of basic pleadings regarding the nature of the property (joint family vs. self-acquired), the existence of a common nucleus, and the impact of prior alienations meant that granting partition would drastically alter the nature of the suit and prejudice the defendants' ability to defend against such specific claims.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court could allow an amendment of the prayer for relief or directly grant partition in the absence of specific pleadings in the trial court. (ii) Whether the defendants committed wilful contempt of court by selling plot portions through agents.
Ratio Decidendi: While Order VII Rule 7 allows for lesser relief, it cannot be invoked to grant relief that requires a completely different factual foundation, new evidence, and distinct issues not pleaded before the trial court. The court cannot make out a case not pleaded and must avoid granting relief that deprives a defendant of a fair opportunity to contest the fundamental nature of the claim, particularly in a partition suit which necessitates identifying the property available and specific shares.
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court confirmed; Contempt Case closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history regarding inheritance and property titles. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court held parties are co-owners, denying exclusive title. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. parties debate the admissibility of a partition relief amendment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court evaluates order vii rule 7 regarding alternative relief. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. amendment and partition criteria restrict changing suit nature. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal confirming trial court findings. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs 1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.17 of 2014 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District at Gadwal in dismissing the suit filed by them for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and recovery of damages of Rs.3,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum.
2. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were the natural daughters of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud through his legally wedded wife by name, Narayanamma @ Shyamalamma, who died in the year 1960. During the life time of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud, he developed illicit relationship with one Ediga Mallamma, defendant No.1 and gave birth to defendants 2 to 7. Since there was no valid marriage between late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud and Ediga Mallamma, the defendants 2 to 7 should be regarded as illegitimate children. After the death of Nadipi Sunkanna Goud, the suit schedule properties were devolved upon plaintiffs 1 to 3 and they were cultivating the same through defendants 6 and 7, who used to manage the cultivation affairs and account for the yield and used to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum to the plaintiffs. Taking advantage of their close access to the estate affairs of the suit property, defendants 6 and 7 managed the revenue authorities and got their names mutated in the revenue records, as if they were the legal heirs of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud and after such mutation, they refused to give the agricultural usufruct to the plaintiffs. In the month of October 2013, they claimed their exclusive rights over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs convened a panchayath through elders and got issued a legal notice on 05.11.2013 demanding delivery of possession of suit schedule properties. Defendants 1, 6 and 7 got issued reply notice on 25.11.2013 with false allegations, as such, they filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and damages.
3. The defendant No.7 filed written statement. The same was adopted by defendants 1 to 6. The defendants admitted their relationship with plaintiffs, but denied that late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud had not married the defendant No.1 after the marriage of plaintiff’s mother. They contended that defendant No.1 was the legally wedded wife of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud and defendants 2 to 7 were his legitimate children. The marriages of the plaintiffs were performed by late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud. He gave sufficient amount and gold in the form of ornaments to the plaintiffs at the time of their marriages. As such, the plaintiffs were not having any right or share in the suit schedule properties. After the death of Nadipi Sunkanna Goud in the year 2002, the suit schedule properties devolved upon the defendants. By virtue of Will Deed dated 30.05.1995, executed by late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud, the defendants 6 and 7 partitioned the suit schedule properties in the year 2003 and the Mandal Revenue Officer issued mutation proceedings.
4. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as follows:
i. Whether the defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Nadipi Sunkanna Goud?
ii. Whether the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Nadipi Sunkanna Goud?
iii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and to recover the suit prope
