ABDUL REHMAN & ANR. versus MOHD. RULDU & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 27-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 922 
ABDUL REHMAN & ANR. 
v. 
MOHD. RULDU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7043 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Or. 6 r. 17 rlw. s. 151 -
Amendment of plaint- Two sale deeds in favour of appellants 
c 
as well as respondents by different members of a family in 
respect of suit property - Appellants filing suit for permanent 
injunction restraining respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - Subsequent 
application for amendment of plaint to add relief of declaration 
of title - Application dismissed by courts below - On appeal, 
D held: The application for amendment is allowed -
Amendments necessary for the purpose of determining the 
real question in controversy should be allowed, if it does not 
change the basic nature of the suit - A change in nature of 
relief cannot be considered as change in nature of the suit -
E 
The challenge to the sale deed in favour of respondents was 
implicit in the factual matrix in the un-amended plaint, and 
hence relief of declaration of title does not change the nature 
of the suit - Relief claimed is not barred in law and the 
amendment would not prejudice the respondents. 
F 
Predecessor-in-interest inherited the suit property 
from his father pursuant to courts order (passed in a suit 
filed by his sisters claiming their share in the property) 
which declared that under the applicable customary law 
of inheritance to the parties, widows and daughters had 
G 
no inheritance rights in presence of the sons. 
H 
Predecessor-in-interest sold the suit property to the 
appellants. The sale was challenged in suit by four of his 
children and the same was dismissed by the courts. After 
922 
ABDUL REHMAN & ANR. v. MOHD. RULDU & ORS. 923 
the death of the predecessor-in-interest, the suit filed by 
A 
his wife for declaration and permanent prohibitory 
injunction against all her children and application seeking 
injunction against the appellants from interfering with her 
possession, were dismissed by the courts. The wife of 
predecessor-in-interest and his two daughters sold the 
8 
suit property to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 
Appellants filed suit for permanent injunction 
restraining respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from forcibly and 
illegally dispossessing the appellants from the suit 
property. Appellants further filed application for C 
amendment of the plaint to include a relief of declaration 
of title in addition to the permanent injunction. Trial court 
dismissed the application. Revision against the same was 
also dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present 
appeal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Parties to the suit are permitted to bring 
forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the 
proceeding for the purpose of determining the real 
E 
question in controversy between them. The courts have 
to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made 
prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application 
is made after the commencement of the trial, in that 
event, the court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite F 
of due diligence, the party could not have raised the 
matter before the commencement of trial. [Para 7] [929-
D-E] 
2. The power to allow the amendment is wide and G 
can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the 
interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the 
amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that 
the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by 
time is to be considered in the light of the facts and 
H 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 8 S.C.R. 
A circumstances of each case. [Para SJ [930-A-BJ 
J. Samuel and Ors. vs. Gattu Mahesh and Ors. (2012) 2 
SCC 300;Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. 
Ltd. and Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 337 - relied on. 
B 
3. The challenge to the voidness of the sale deeds 
in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was implicit in the 
factual matrix set out in the un-amended plaint and, 
therefore, the relief of cancellation of sale deeds as 
sought by amendment does not change the nature of the 
c suit as alleged. It is settled law that if necessary factual 
basis for amendment is already contained in the plaint, 
the relief sought on the said basis would not change the 
nature of the suit. [Para 1 OJ [931-C-DJ 
Pankaja and Anr. vs. Yel/apa (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors. 
D AIR 2004 SC4102 = (2004) 6 SCC 415 - relied on. 
4. The relief sought by way of amendment could also 
be claimed by way of a separate suit on t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.