Citations
1) Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126
2) Bolo v. Koklan [(1929-30) 57 IA 325 : AIR 1930 PC 270] and it was held: (IA p. 331)
3) Annamalai Chettiar v.Muthukaruppan Chettiar [ILR (1930) 8 Rang 645]
4) Gobinda Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh [(1930-31) 58 IA 125]
5) Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan [AIR 1960 SC 335 : (1960) 2 SCR 253]
6) Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba, ILR 33 Bom 644 (1900)
7) Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, 1957 SCR 595, at pages 603 to 604
8) Charan Das v. Amir Khan, 47 IA 255 (1920)
9) L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., 1957 SCR 438, at pages 450 to 451
10) Pirgonda Hongonda Patil, reported in 1957 SCR 595
11) K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Anr. v. Alliance Ministries & Ors., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 17
12) Vishwambhar & Ors. v. Laxminarayan (Dead) through LRs & Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 163
13) Siddalingamma and Anr v. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561
14) Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 559
15) Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Registered) v. Ramesh Chander and Ors., (2010) 14 SCC 596
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6595 OF 2015
(arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15513 of 2015)
L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA (SINCE DEAD) …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
H.B. SHIVAKUMAR ...Respondent
the defendants, his servants and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In this suit, namely, O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 filed before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the plaintiff averred that he is the absolute owner, and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He also averred in the said suit that the schedule property is clearly distinguishable and could be identified without difficulty. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose when the defendant tried to trespass on the schedule property two days before the suit was filed.
3. Within a few days from the filing of this suit, the defendant in the first suit filed a suit being suit number O.S. 1650 of 1990 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore against one L.C. Ramaiah and the said Shri Hanumanthappa stating that the defendants had attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property about 15 days prior to the suit being filed, and asked for a permanent injunction against the said defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
The Hon'ble court held :-
14. Given this statement of the law, it is clear that the present amendment of the plaint is indeed time-barred in that the right to sue for declaration of title first arose on 16th May, 1990 when in the very first written statement the defendant had pleaded, in para 13 in particular, that the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable in that the plaintiff had failed to establish title with possession over the suit property. The only question that remains to be answered is in relation to the doctrine of relation back insofar as it applies to amendments made under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
15. As early as in the year 1900, the Bombay High Court in Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba, ILR 33 Bom 644 (1900), held as follows:-
“ ... 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 could not be compensated in costs. It is merely a particular case of this general rule that where a plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, the amendment must be refused; to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a good defence to the claim. The ultimate test therefore still remains the same: can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side, or can it not?” [at p. 655]
.....
29.......By 16th May, 1993 therefore a suit based on declaration of title would have become time-barred. It is clear that the doctrine of relation back would not apply to the facts of this case for the reason that the court which allowed the amendment expressly allowed it subject to the plea of limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or extraordinary circumstances in the present case to warrant the doctrine of relation back applying so that a legal right that had accrued in favour of the defendant should be taken away. This being so, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1) Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126
2) Bolo v. Koklan [(1929-30) 57 IA 325 : AIR 1930 PC 270] and it was held: (IA p. 331)
3) Annamalai Chettiar v.Muthukaruppan Chettiar [ILR (1930) 8 Rang 645]
4) Gobinda Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh [(1930-31) 58 IA 125]
5) Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan [AIR 1960 SC 335 : (1960) 2 SCR 253]
6) Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba, ILR 33 Bom 644 (1900)
7) Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, 1957 SCR 595, at pages 603 to 604
8) Charan Das v. Amir Khan, 47 IA 255 (1920)
9) L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., 1957 SCR 438, at pages 450 to 451
10) Pirgonda Hongonda Patil, reported in 1957 SCR 595
11) K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Anr. v. Alliance Ministries & Ors., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 17
12) Vishwambhar & Ors. v. Laxminarayan (Dead) through LRs & Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 163
13) Siddalingamma and Anr v. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561
14) Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 559
15) Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Registered) v. Ramesh Chander and Ors., (2010) 14 SCC 596
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6595 OF 2015
(arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15513 of 2015)
L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA (SINCE DEAD) …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
H.B. SHIVAKUMAR ...Respondent
the defendants, his servants and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In this suit, namely, O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 filed before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the plaintiff averred that he is the absolute owner, and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He also averred in the said suit that the schedule property is clearly distinguishable and could be identified without difficulty. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose when the defendant tried to trespass on the schedule property two days before the suit was filed.
3. Within a few days from the filing of this suit, the defendant in the first suit filed a suit being suit number O.S. 1650 of 1990 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore against one L.C. Ramaiah and the said Shri Hanumanthappa stating that the defendants had attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property about 15 days prior to the suit being filed, and asked for a permanent injunction against the said defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
The Hon'ble court held :-
14. Given this statement of the law, it is clear that the present amendment of the plaint is indeed time-barred in that the right to sue for declaration of title first arose on 16th May, 1990 when in the very first written statement the defendant had pleaded, in para 13 in particular, that the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable in that the plaintiff had failed to establish title with possession over the suit property. The only question that remains to be answered is in relation to the doctrine of relation back insofar as it applies to amendments made under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
15. As early as in the year 1900, the Bombay High Court in Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba, ILR 33 Bom 644 (1900), held as follows:-
“ ... 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 could not be compensated in costs. It is merely a particular case of this general rule that where a plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, the amendment must be refused; to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a good defence to the claim. The ultimate test therefore still remains the same: can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side, or can it not?” [at p. 655]
.....
29.......By 16th May, 1993 therefore a suit based on declaration of title would have become time-barred. It is clear that the doctrine of relation back would not apply to the facts of this case for the reason that the court which allowed the amendment expressly allowed it subject to the plea of limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or extraordinary circumstances in the present case to warrant the doctrine of relation back applying so that a legal right that had accrued in favour of the defendant should be taken away. This being so, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Comments
Post a Comment