ASHUTOSH CHATURVEDI versus PRANO DEVI @ PARANI DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 801 · Decided: 22-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 801 
-" 
ASHUTOSH CHATURVEDI •. 
v. 
PRANO DEVI @ PARANI DEVI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2893 of 2008) 
APRIL 22, 2008 
( S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ ) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
Or. VI, r. 17 - Amendment of plaint - Limitation - Suit for 
declaration of title and possession and for setting aside a sale C 
deed - Trial court granting status quo - Thereafter two more 
sale deeds executed - After 13 years plaintiff filing an 
application seeking to amend plaint and claiming preferential 
rights over suit land as a co-sharer - HELD: - A suit claiming 
preferential rights was required to be filed ordinarily within the D 
prescribed period of limitation and, therefore, applicant cannot 
take any benefit uls 22 of Hindu Succession Act - There is 
nothing on record that during pendency of proceedings before 
appellate court, there was stay of proceedings of trial Court -
Application being barred by limitation, Court would not E 
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to allow amendment of 
plaint - Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule -Article 97 - Hindu 
Succession Act, 1956 - s. 22 - Practice and Procedure -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant filed on 
F 
21.5.1990 a suit for declaration of his title to and 
possession over the suit land and for setting aside the 
sale deed dated 8.3.1990 executed in favour of 
respondents-defendants no. 1 and 2. On an application 
for interim relief, an order of status quo was passed by G 
the trial court. Thereafter two sale deeds were executed 
in favour of third parties. Miscellaneous appeals filed by 
respondents were stated to have remained pending before 
the District Judge for a long time. On 11.6.2003 the 
801 
H 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
I< , 
A appellant filed an application for amendment of the plaint 
seeking to add a new relief claiming preferential rights in 
respect of the suit land on the premise that the plaintiff 
was a co-sharer thereof. The respondents opposed the 
proposed amendment, inter alia, on the grounds that it 
B sought to change the entire nature and scope of the suit 
.--~ 
as also the cause of action; and that for enforcement of 
right of preemption the period of limitation was one year 
from date of the sale and the application was filed after 
about 13 years of filing of the suit. The trial court rejected 
c the application for amendment and the High Court 
declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the successor-in-interest 
of the plaintiff filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1 A right claiming preference over a property 
in terms of a statute ordinarily is a weak right. Limitation 
Act 1963, by Article 97, provides for one year's limitation 
..,.. 
for claiming such a right. The suit was filed in the year 
1990. The sale deeds, during the pendency of the suit, 
E 
were executed on 8.6.1990 and 18.6.1990. The application 
for amendment was filed 13 years after the filing of the 
suit. A suit claiming preferential right was required to be 
filed ordinarily within the prescribed period of limitation. 
[para 8] [807-E-F] 
F 
1.2 Execution of the two deeds of sale stated to be in 
violation of the order of injunction cannot be a ground for 
allowing the amendment of the plaint. If the deeds of sale 
are held to be bad in law, that would not mean that by 
reason thereof, the co-sharer of the plaintiff would 
G propose to execute a sale deed giving a cause of action 
for filing a fresh suit. Plaintiff was required to exercise his 
right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act within 
the period prescribed therefor. The said deeds of sale 
-+ " 
either would be declared valid or invalid. In either way, 
H the appellant cannot take any benefit of the provisions of 
ASHUTOSH CHATURVEDI v. PRANO DEVI @ PARANI 
803 
DEVI & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 
~ :>\ 
Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. [para 9] [807-G-
A 
, 
H; 808-A-B] 
... 
TN. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v TN. Electricity Board and 
Ors. (2004) 3 sec 392; and L.J. Leach and Company Ltd. v. 
Jardine Skinner and Co. 1957 SCR 438; State Bank of 
B 
~~'f-
Hyderabad v Town Municipal Council 2006 (13) SCALE 332; 
- relied on. 
2. It cannot be said that the appellant could not file 
an application for amendment of plaint as the matters had 
been pending in the court of the District Judge for a long c 
period. There is nothing on record to show that the 
District Judge granted an orde

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