Telangana High Court
Nagulavancha Linga Rao vs Nagulavancha Laxmi on 4 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1946 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated
01.05.2024 in I.A.No.154 of 2024 in O.S.No.141 of 2015 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda.
2. Heard Sri T.L.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for petitioners and
Sri N.Hari Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein
are the defendants before the trial Court.
4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision
Petition are that petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.141 of 2015 on the file
of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, for perpetual injunction against the
respondents restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule
property. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed
interlocutory application vide I.A.No.154 of 2023 under Order VI Rule
17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to amend the pleadings of the plaint. In the
said application, it is contended that along with the suit, petitioners also
filed I.A.No.495 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to
grant temporary injunction and the respondent No.2 filed counter
stating that the suit schedule property is coparcenery property of the
petitioner No.1 and the father of the respondent No.1 and that the same
LNA,J,
was partitioned among them and that he is claiming rights basing on
registered sale deeds. Therefore, in view of challenge made by the
respondents with regard to the title of the petitioners, it is necessary to
seek declaration, injunction and also for cancellation of sale deeds
bearing document Nos.1702 of 2006 dated 25.02.2006 and 2448 of 2006
dated 16.03.2006.
5. The respondents filed counter and contended that the
amendments sought for by the petitioners are barred by law and further
contended that respondents filed written statement on 25.08.2015
denying the right and title of the petitioners, however, I.A., for
amendment was filed in the month of December, 2023 i.e, after eight
years after filing of written statement. Therefore, the application is
barred by limitation and hence, liable to be dismissed.
6. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 01.05.2024 dismissed
the application with a specific observation that petitioners did not aver
or whisper as to what prevented them from filing the application
seeking the amendment of the plaint when they have knowledge about
the denial of the title and also setting up title over the suit schedule
property by the respondent No.2 by virtue of sale deed. The trial Court
further observed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
LNA,J,
Apex Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta 1, the application filed
by the petitioners after expiry of period of limitation despite having
knowledge about the denial of title by the respondents in the year 2015,
when the written statement was filed, cannot be entertained.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial
Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on
improper appreciation of the facts and law and further submitted that
trial Court also failed to consider the well settled law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi
Reddy and others 2. Learned counsel further submitted that trial
Court wrongly relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pramod Gupta (supra) and Voltas Ltd. V. Rolta India Limited 3 and
other judgments, which have no application to the facts of the present
case. He further submitted that since there is a clear denial of title of
the petitioners by the respondents, it is necessary to amend the
pleadings and if the application is not allowed, petitioners will be put
to irreparable loss and injury and finally, prayed to allow the Civil
Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the trial
Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that
the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application as the same is
(2005) 12 SCC 1
2008 AIR (SC) 2033
(2014) 4 SCC 516
LNA,J,
barred by limitation. He further submitted that suit was filed in the
year 2015 and written statement was filed in the month of December,
2015, wherein the respondents have taken categorical stand that suit
schedule property is a coparcenery property of the petitioner No.1 and
the father of the respondent No.1 and the same was partitioned
among them and that father of the respondent No.1 had executed a
gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 and basing on the gift
settlement deed, respondent No.1 had executed two registered sale
deeds in favour of respondent No.2. It is further contended that
despite clear stand taken in the written statement, petitioners filed
application for amendment of pleadings only in the year 2023. It is
specifically contended that limitation for seeking declaration of title
and cancellation of document is only three years from the date right
accrues and date of knowledge, whereas in the present case,
application was filed after eight years from the date of filing of written
statement and, therefore, application is clearly barred by limitation
and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. It is finally
contended that petitioners failed to point out any illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order and hence, Revision is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Perusal of the record would disclose that initially petitioners
filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with the suit schedule property in the month of April, 2015
and the respondent No.2 filed written statement in the month of
LNA,J,
December, 2015 and has taken categorical stand that the suit
schedule property was partitioned among the petitioner No.1 and the
father of respondent No.1 and the registered gift deed was executed by
the father of respondent no.1 in favour of respondent No.1 vide gift
settlement deed vide document No.6282 dated 07.11.2003 and the
same was incorporated in the revenue records by the revenue officials.
Thereafter, the respondent no.1 executed two sale deeds vide
document Nos.1702 of 2006 dated 25.02.2006 and 2448 of 2006
dated 16.03.2006 in favour of respondent no.2 in respect of the suit
schedule property and the same was also incorporated in the revenue
records and further, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued
in the name of respondent no.2 and he has been enjoying the suit
schedule property since the date of purchase.
10. Admittedly, application for amendment of pleadings was filed in
the month of December, 2023 i.e., after about eight years from the
date of filing of written statement. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel for respondents, the limitation for seeking relief of declaration
of title is three years from the date when the right first accrues as per
Article 58 of the Limitation Act, and relief seeking cancellation of an
instrument or decree is three years from the date of knowledge as per
Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
11. The above principle is reiterated in catena of decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court. In Voltas Ltd.,(supra), which was referred to by
the trial Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that having allowed the
LNA,J,
period of seven years to elapse from the date of filing the suit and the
period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the Schedule
to the Limitation Act, 1963 any amendment on the grounds set out,
would defeat the valuable right of limitation accruing to the
respondent. The trial Court also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pramod Gupta (supra), whereas the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that delay and latches on the part of the parties to the
proceedings would also be a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing
an application for amendment of the pleadings.
12. In Radhika Devi Vs. Bajrangi Singh and others 4, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that where a party acquires right
by bar of limitation and if the same is sought to be taken away by
amendment of pleadings, the amendment, in such circumstances,
would be refused. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Radhika Devi's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the
present case.
13. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there is clear delay,
latches and on the part of the petitioners and in fact, the amendment
sought for by the petitioners are also clearly barred by limitation
under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the trial
Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the
petitioners.
(1996) 7 SCC 486
LNA,J,
14. In view of the above discussion and legal position, in considered
opinion of this Court, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit
and the petitioners failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in
the impugned order passed by the trial court. Therefore, the Civil
Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 04.03.2025
kkm
