MALLAVVA AND ANR versus KALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1884 · Decided: 19-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1884 : 2024 INSC 1021
Mallavva and Anr. 
v. 
Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead)  
by Legal Heirs & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14803 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the original suit filed by the plaintiffs even after the 
amendment of the plaint at the stage of first appeal seeking 
possession of the suit property could be said to be time barred. 
In other words, whether the suit would be governed by Article 58 
or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.58 and Art.65 – Original Plaintiff-K 
instituted suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction in 
respect of suit property – Trial Court while dismissing the suit 
held that the plaintiffs were the absolute owner of the suit 
schedule properties – Legal heirs of original plaintiff filed First 
Appeal with amendment of plaint, wherein plaintiffs prayed for 
possession of the suit property – The First Appellate Court 
allowed the application of amendment and also reversed the 
judgment and order passed by the trial Court – Appellants-
defendants filed Second Appeal, which was dismissed – Before 
the Supreme Court, appellants contended that the suit would 
be governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and is liable 
to be dismissed being time barred:
Held: As far as title to the property is concerned, the plaintiff 
was able to establish that she was the absolute owner of the suit 
schedule properties – In the First Appeal filed by the legal heirs 
of the original plaintiffs, the plaint was permitted to be amended 
and added the prayer for recovery of the possession from the 
defendants came to be added – It is true that as regards the 
findings on title and ownership, the defendants filed cross-objections 
before the First Appellate Court and those were looked into and 
*Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1885
Mallavva and Anr. v.  
Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead) by Legal Heirs & Ors.
dismissed – It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended 
to be a handmaid to the administration of justice – A party cannot 
be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, 
inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure – The court 
always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it 
is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by 
his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be 
compensated for by an order of cost – However, the Court should 
decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amendment claims would 
be barred by limitation on the date of application – Article 65 of 
the Limitation Act lays down description of suit for possession 
of immovable property or any interest based on title – The time 
from which period it begins to run is when the possession of the 
defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff – When the suit is based 
on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis 
of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant 
proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff 
cannot be non-suited – In C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa, 
it was held that in a suit for declaration with a further relief, the 
limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit 
for such further relief – In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to 
immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such 
a property continues and subsists – When such right continues to 
subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and 
there would be no limitation for such a suit – The principle is that 
the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred 
so long as Right to Property subsist. [Paras 9, 23, 29, 31, 32]
Case Law Cited
Pandit Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (1979) 4 
SCC 163; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu & Anr. [2002] Supp. 2 
SCR 397 : (2002) 7 SCC 559; Siddalingamma & Anr. v. Mamtha 
Shenoy [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 366 : (2001) 8 SCC 561; Revajeetu 
Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons & Ors. 
[2009] 15 SCR 103 : (2009) 10 SCC 84 – relied on.
Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [2011] 
15 SCR 299 : (2011) 9 SCC 126; Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (Deceased) 
through Legal Representatives & Anr. [2022] 19 SCR 202 : (2022) 
15 SCC 260 – held inapplicable.
Mahila Ramkali Devi v. Nandram (Dead) through Legal 
Representatives [2015] 4 SCR 974 : (2015) 13 SC

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