//
you're reading...
legal issues

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : O 6 r.17 – Amendment of plaint after passing of final decree – Maintainability of – Final decree passed in suit for partition – Appellants purchased undivided share in joint family property and were parties to preliminary decree as also final decree which attainted finality – Subsequently, application for amendment of plaint by decree holder seeking correction in survey no., allowed – Challenge to, by appellant-pendente lite purchaser – Held: Amendment application was maintainable – Wrong description of property was a typographical mistake – Appellants not entitled to possession of land what they have purchased but merely acquired right to sue for partition – Identity of suit land not changed – Survey no. is a joint family property – Same plot was subject matter of sale – Also, appellants could not show at to how they were prejudiced. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to allow an application for amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed. =Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The power of the court to allow such an application for amendment of plaint is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Such a wide power on the part of the court is circumscribed by two factors, viz., (i) the application must be bonafide; (ii) the same should not cause injustice to the other side and (iii) it should not affect the right already accrued to the defendants. (Para 11) [ 54-C] 2.1 It is also not in dispute that in the plaint suit land was described as Revisional Survey No. 165. The village became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463. However, in the plaint and consequently in the preliminary decree as also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake. (Para 10) [ 53-H; 54-A, B] 2.2 Appellants are pendente lite purchaser from defendant Nos. 3 to 7. A preliminary decree was passed against them. It has attained finality. They were also allowed to participate in the final decree proceedings. A final decree was also drawn up. It also attained finality. The respective shares of the parties inter se in the joint family property as also the plots of the lands which were required to be allocated respectively in their favour is no longer in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellants, being purchasers of undivided share in a joint family property, are not entitled to possession of the land what they have purchased. They have in law merely acquired a right to sue for partition. Appellants merely could have filed a suit for partition either as a plaintiff or defendant in respect of the property which was joint family property. (Paras 12 and 13) [ 54-D, E, F, G, H] M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and Others AIR 1966 SC 470 and Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Others (2008) 7 SCC 46 – relied on. 2.3 The deeds of sale in terms whereof the appellants purchased share in the joint family property, consisted of the suit lands including Town Survey No. 463. It is not the case of any of the party to the suit that the Town Survey No. 462 was the joint family property or could have otherwise been the subject matter of the said suit for partition. (Para 14) [ 54-G, H; 55-A] Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan (2005) 13 SCC 89; Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others (2007) 13 SCC 421 : AIR 2008 SC 225; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 – referred to. 2.4 The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. But, in a case of this nature, the same would be an empty formality. The identity of the suit land has not been changed. It is not a case where one land is being substituted by another. The fact that the town survey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute. It is the same plot which was the subject matter of sale and only in respect thereof the appellants could claim partition. Appellants have also furthermore not been able to show as to how and in what manner they have been prejudiced. (Para 15) [ 56-H; 57- A, B, C] Case Law Reference AIR 1966 SC 470 Relied on Para 12 (2008) 7 SCC 46 Relied on Para 12 (2005) 13 SCC 89 Referred to Para 14 (2007) 13 SCC 421 Referred to Para 14 (2008) 8 SCC 511 Referred to Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 942 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 10.08.2005 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.3666/2005. Mahabir Singh, D. Mahesh Babu, for the Appellants. P.S. Narasimha, M. Gireesh Kumar, Avijeet Kr. Lala, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, for the Respondent.

The Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly ...

Image via Wikipedia

REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 942 OF 2009
 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23191 of 2005]

Peethani Suryanarayana & Anr. ...
Appellants

 Versus

Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore & Ors. ...Respondents

 JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. Jurisdiction of a civil court to allow an application for amendment of

plaint after a final decree is passed is in question in this appeal which arises

out of a judgment and order dated 10.08.2005 passed by the High Court of

Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No. 3666 of 2005.
 2

3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix:

 A suit for partition as also for a decree for setting aside some deeds of

sale executed in favour of some of the defendants was filed by the

respondent No. 1. Indisputably, during pendency of the said suit, the

defendant Nos. 3 to 7 sold their right, title and interest in favour of the

appellants by reason of registered deeds of sale dated 29.06.1992 and

7.08.1992. The said defendants having not taken any further steps in the

said suit, it was directed to be heard exparte against them.

4. Appellants herein filed an application for impleading themselves as

parties in the said suit, which was rejected by an order dated 4.08.1993.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, they filed a revision application

before the High Court. The High Court by reason of an order dated

3.07.1998 purported to have allowed the appellants to participate in the final

decree proceedings, stating:

 "The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit for
 partition claiming half share in the total property.
 The said suit was decreed in terms of the prayer
 made in the suit. Before the suit was decreed, the
 defendants 3 to 7 in the said suit were set ex-parte
 from whom the present petitioners alleged to have
 purchased their shares. When the preliminary
 decree is passed, purchaser of the shares of the
 3

 defendants are entitled to participate in the final
 decree proceedings to work out the equities."

5. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said order, the appellants

participated in the final decree proceeding. The final decree was passed on

17.12.2001. Validity or otherwise of the said final decree was not

questioned. It, thus, attained finality.

6. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an application for amendment of a

mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the decree, seeking deletion of the

Town Survey No. 462 and substituting the same by the Town Survey No.

463.

 The said application was allowed by an order dated 25.08.2003.

Defendant No. 4 in the suit filed a revision application thereagainst, which

was dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 19.12.2003 opining that

the mistake was a clerical one.

7. Appellants herein filed an application purported to be under Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said order dated

25.08.2003, which was dismissed by an order dated 14.03.2005. The High
 4

Court, by reason of the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2005 dismissed the

revision application filed by the appellants thereagainst.

 Appellants are, thus, before us.

8. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants, would submit:

 (i) The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court committed a

 serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as they

 failed to take into consideration that an application for amendment

 of plaint was not maintainable after passing of a decree.

 (ii) Appellants herein having been impleaded as a party in the final

 decree proceedings in terms of the order of the High court dated

 3.07.1998, the Trial Court was obligated to serve a notice on the

 application for amendment of plaint as also hear the appellants

 thereupon.

 (iii) Although entertainment of an application for amendment of plaint

 after a decree is passed may be permissible in law, by reason

 thereof, the lands in suit cannot be substituted by another.
 5

9. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents, on the other hand, would contend:

 (i) Amendments, which do not affect the interest of the other parties,

 for a bonafide purpose and for effective execution of the decree,

 should be allowed.

 (ii) The main object of the rule being that the court should allow all

 amendments which are necessary to determine the real question in

 controversy between the parties without causing injustice to the

 other side and only because the parties at one point of time were

 negligent or careless in mentioning the correct plot number, the

 same, by itself, shall not be a ground for taking away the right

 vested in a party by reason of a valid decree passed in his favour

 as by reason thereof the identity of suit land is not changed.

 (iii) Wrong description of a property in the plaint despite passing of a

 decree should not be rejected where it is immaterial whether errors

 were introduced in the plaint or any other document, if it is found

 that only clerical mistakes were made which could be corrected for

 the purpose of proper execution of a decree.
 6

10. The factual matrix involved in the matter, as noticed hereinbefore, is

not in dispute.

 It is also not in dispute that in the plaint suit land was described as

Revisional Survey No. 165. The village became a part of the municipality,

by reason whereof a new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being

Town Survey No. 463. However, in the plaint and consequently in the

preliminary decree as also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was

mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake.

11. The power of the court to allow such an application for amendment of

plaint is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Such a wide power on the part of

the court is circumscribed by two factors, viz., (i) the application must be

bonafide; (ii) the same should not cause injustice to the other side and (iii) it

should not affect the right already accrued to the defendants.

12. Appellants herein are pendent elite purchaser from the Defendant

Nos. 3 to 7. A preliminary decree was passed against them. It has attained

finality. They were also allowed to participate in the final decree

proceedings. A final decree was also drawn up. It also attained finality.

The respective shares of the parties inter se in the joint family property as
 7

also the plots of the lands which were required to be allocated respectively

in their favour is no longer in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the

appellants, being purchasers of undivided share in a joint family property,

are not entitled to possession of the land what they have purchased. They

have in law merely acquired a right to sue for partition. [See M.V.S.

Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and others AIR 1966 SC 470 and

Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Others (2008) 7 SCC 46]

13. In view of the aforementioned legal position, the appellants merely

could have filed a suit for partition either as a plaintiff or defendant in

respect of the property which was joint family property.

14. On a query made by us, it was stated at the bar that the deeds of sale

dated 29.06.1992 and 7.08.1992, in terms whereof the appellants purchased

share in the joint family property, consisted of the suit lands including the

aforementioned Town Survey No. 463. It is not the case of any of the party

to the suit that the Town Survey No. 462 was the joint family property or

could have otherwise been the subject matter of the said suit for partition.

 In Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan [(2005) 13 SCC 89], this Court held:
 8

 "5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
 parties, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to
 be allowed as the trial court, while rejecting the
 prayer for amendment has failed to exercise the
 jurisdiction vested in it by law and by the failure
 to so exercise it, has occasioned a possible failure
 of justice. Such an error committed by the trial
 court was liable to be corrected by the High Court
 in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, even if
 Section 115 CPC would not have been strictly
 applicable. It is true that the plaintiff-appellant
 ought to have been diligent in promptly seeking
 the amendment in the plaint at an early stage of the
 suit, more so when the error on the part of the
 plaintiff was pointed out by the defendant in the
 written statement itself. Still, we are of the opinion
 that the proposed amendment was necessary for
 the purpose of bringing to the fore the real
 question in controversy between the parties and
 the refusal to permit the amendment would create
 needless complications at the stage of execution in
 the event of the plaintiff-appellant succeeding in
 the suit."

 In Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd.

and Others [(2007) 13 SCC 421 : AIR 2008 SC 225] this Court held :

 "25. It is not a case where the defendants could
 be said to have been misled. It is now well settled
 that the pleadings of the parties are to be read in
 their entirety. They are to be construed liberally
 and not in a pedantic manner. It is also not a case
 where by reason of an amendment, one property is
 being substituted by the other. If the Court has the
 requisite power to make an amendment of the
 decree, the same would not mean that it had gone
 9

 beyond the decree or passing any decree. The
 statements contained in the body of the plaint have
 sufficiently described the suit lands. Only because
 some blanks in the schedule of the property have
 been left, the same, by itself, may not be a ground
 to deprive the respondents from the fruit of the
 decree. If the appellant herein did not file any
 written statement, he did so at its own peril.
 Admittedly, he examined himself as a witness in
 the case. He, therefore, was aware of the issues
 raised in the suit. It is stated that an Advocate-
 Commissioner has also been appointed. We,
 therefore, are of the opinion that only because the
 JL numbers in the schedule was missing, the same
 by itself would not be a ground to interfere with
 the impugned order."

 In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan

Das (Dead) By LRs. [(2008) 8 SCC 511], this Court held:

 "16. Insofar as the principles which govern the
 question of granting or disallowing amendments
 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the
 relevant time) are concerned, these are also well
 settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates
 amendment of pleadings at any stage of the
 proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v.
 Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. which still
 holds the field, it was held that all amendments
 ought to be allowed which satisfy the two
 conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the
 other side, and (b) of being necessary for the
 purpose of determining the real questions in
 controversy between the parties. Amendments
 should be refused only where the other party
 cannot be placed in the same position as if the
 pleading had been originally correct, but the
 amendment would cause him an injury which
 10

 could not be compensated in costs. (Also see:
 Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal
 Kalwar)"

15. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the principles of natural

justice are required to be complied with. But, in a case of this nature, the

same would be an empty formality. The facts are not disputed. The identity

of the suit land has not been changed. It is not a case where, as submitted

by Mr. Mahabir Singh, one land is being substituted by another. The fact

that the town survey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute. As

indicated hereinbefore, it is the same plot which was the subject matter of

sale and only in respect thereof the appellants herein could claim partition.

Appellants have also furthermore not been able to show as to how and in

what manner they have been prejudiced.

16. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal,

which is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

 ...............................J.
 [S.B. Sinha]
 11 ................................J.
 [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]
New Delhi;
February 12, 2009

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,199 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: