LexL.C. HANUMANTHAPPA (SINCE DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. versus H. B. SHIVAKUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 651 L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA(SINCE DEAD) REPRESENTED A BYHISLRS. v. H. B. SHIVAKUMAR (Civil Appeal No.6595 of 2015) AUGUST 26, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] B Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule Article 58 ~Applicability C of - To amended plaint - Original Suit for permanent injunction filed on 9.3.1990 - In original written statement (filed on 16. 5. 1990) plaintiff's title to property denied - Amendment of plaint allowed by order dated 28.3.2002 - Amendment of plaint for declaration of title to the suit D schedule property-Plea in additional written statement that the plea of declaration of title was time-barred- Suit decreed, turning down the plea of limitation - High Court held that the amended plea was time-barred - On appeal, held: Right to sue for declaration of title first arose on 16. 5. 1990 (when the E defendant denied the title in his written statement) - The amendment having been done after 3 yearsfrom 16.5.1990 was time-barred u!s. 58 - Doctrine of relation back will also not apply to the present case, because the amendment was allowed subject to the plea of limitation - Doctrine of Relation F Back - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 6 r. 17. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the amended plaint inasmuch as it sought to G add the relief of declaration of title to the already existing relief for grant of permanent injunction. The present amendment of the plaint is indeed time-barred in that the 651 H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A rightto sue for declaration of title first arose on 16th May, 1990 when in the very first written· statement the defendant had pleaded, that the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable in that the plaintiff had failed to establish title with possession over the suit B property. [Paras 13, 14] [660-A-B; 662-E-F] Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. 2011 (15) SCR 299: (2011) 9 sec 126 - relied on. C 2.1 In the present case, two things are clear. First, in the original written statement itself dated 16th May, 1990, the defendant had clearly put the plaintiff on notice that it had denied the plaintiff's title to the suit property. Secondly; while allowing the amendment, the High Court o in its earlier judgment dated 28th March, 2002 had expressly remanded the matter to the trial court, allowing the defendant to raise the plea of limitation. Thus, the right to sue for declaration of title first arose on 16th May, 1990 when the original written statement c!early denied E the plaintiff's title. By 16th May, 1993 therefore a suit based on declaration of title would have become time-barred. [Para 29] [67 4-A-E] 2.2 The doctrine of relation back would not apply to F the facts of the present case for the reason that the court which allowed the amendment expressly allowed it, subject to the plea of limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or extraordinary circumstances in the present case to warrant the doctrine of relation back G applying so that a legal right that had accrued in favour of the defendant should be taken away. [Para 29] [674- E-F] Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba ILR 33 Bom H 644 (1900); Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA (SINCE DEAD) REPRESENTED 653 BY HIS LRS. v. H. 8. SHIVAKUMAR Shidgonda Patil 1957 SCR 595; Charan Das v. Amir Khan A 47 IA255 (1920); L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner& Co. 1957 SCR 438; K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Anr. v. Alliance Ministries & Ors. 1995 (3) SCR 960: 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 17; Vishwambhar & Ors. v. Laxminarayan (Dead) through LRs & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 163; Siddalingamma and B Anr v. Mamtha Shenoy 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 366: (2001) 8 SCC 561; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr. 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 397: (2002) 7 SCC 559; Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit c (Registered) v. Ramesh Chander and Ors. 2010 (12) SCR 1045: (20~0) 14 SCC 596; Prithi Pal Singh andAnr. v. Amrik Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 576 - referred to. Case Law Reference D 2011 (15) SCR 299 relied on. Para 13 ILR 33 Som 644 (1900) referred to. Para 15 1957 SCR 595 referred to. Para 16 E 47 IA 255 (1920) referred to. Para 17 1957 SCR"'438 referred to. Para 18 1995 (3) SCR 960 referred to. Para 22 F (2001) 6 sec 163 referred to. Para 23 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 366 referred to. Para 24
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.