Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 94 (TS)

Nagulavancha Linga Rao v. Nagulavancha Laxmi

2025-03-04

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
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 vide interlocutory application 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 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 Apex Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 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 2008 AIR (SC) 2033 . 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 (2014) 4 SCC 516 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 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 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 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. 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 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 (1996) 7 SCC 486 , 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. 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.