Or.VI, rule 17 C.P.C.- trial completed - in the midst of the arguments - filed petition for amendment of plaint to claim the relief of declaration of title and also for the relief of correction of record of rights in favour of the petitioners - Trail declined as highly belated - their lordships of Telangan held that They have slept over various stages for a period of ten years and leisurely filed the application for amendment after completion of the trial and more than one year after commencement of the arguments. These facts would clinchingly establish that the mandatory requirement of satisfying the Court, that despite due diligence, they could not have filed the application for amendment earlier, has not been satisfied by the petitioners. The lower Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the application. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. - 2015 Telangana msklawreports



After completion of trial,
the case underwent several adjournments for arguments. While 
so, in the midst of the arguments, the petitioners filed I.A.No.296
of 2014 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint to claim the
relief of declaration of title and also for the relief of correction
of record of rights in favour of the petitioners.
As rightly observed by the lower Court, since the
respondents have been strongly asserting their title over the suit
schedule property, the petitioners should have claimed the relief
of declaration of title in the beginning itself. Even if for any
reason there was a bona fide lapse on the part of the petitioners
to claim such a relief initially, at least after the entries in the
revenue record were altered in favour of the respondents in the
year 2005-06, they should have come out with the application
for amendment.

     It appears Exs.B-6 to B-17 were marked as far back as the
year 2012. At least within a reasonable time of marking those
documents, the petitioners should have filed the application for
amendment. They have slept over various stages for a period of
ten years and leisurely filed the application for amendment after
completion of the trial and more than one year after
commencement of the arguments. These facts would clinchingly
establish that the mandatory requirement of satisfying the
Court, that despite due diligence, they could not have filed the
application for amendment earlier, has not been satisfied by the
petitioners. The lower Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the
application. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
order of the lower Court. - 2015 Telangana msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it...
Read more

Court Fee - whether on refund of advance money or on entire sale agreement consideration - Specific performance of contract - suppression of material facts(previous litigations on the property) - contract rescinded - suit filed for refund of money - court fee is to be paid on refund claimed amount but not on entire sale agreement consideration = 2015 CHENNAI(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS

it is clear that seeking relief of specific performance of the contract is different from seeking return of advance amount. It has been held that if a suit is filed without seeking specific performance of contract, but only for return of advance amount paid, subsequently, the plaint cannot be amended. 16. As per the pleadings of the plaint, the suit was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, stating that the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pendency of various litigations, in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement for sale, hence, he rescind the contract and demanded the respondent for return of the advance amount.  At this stage, the Court below cannot go into the merits of the case for deciding the Court fees payable. The Court below has to consider the pleadings of the petitioner / plaintiff. As per the averments made by the petitioner / plaintiff, the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pending litigation, in respec...
Read more