LexPEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR. versus REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 48 A PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR. VS. .... REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS. ~ l Civil Appeal No. 942 of 2009 B FEBRUARY 12, 2009 (S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) Cod~ of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 0 6 r. 17 - Amendment of plaint after passing of final de- ... ~ c cree - Maintainability of - Final decree passed in suit for par- titian - Appellants purchased undivided share in joint family property and were parties to preliminary decree as also final decree which attainted finality - Subsequently, application for amendment of plaint by decree holder seeking correction in D survey no., allowed- Challenge to, by appellant-pendente lite purchaser - Held: Amendment application was maintainable -4- - Wrong description of property was a typographical mistake - Appellants not entitled to possession of land what they have \ i purchased but merely acquired right to sue for partition - Iden- : E tity of suit land not changed - Survey no. is a joint family prop- erty - Same plot was subject matter of sale - Also, appellants could not show at to how they were prejudiced. The question which arose for consideration in this .,. appeal was whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to I F allow an application for amendment of plaint after a final t decree is passed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 The power of the court to allow such an l\- applicat.ion for amendment of plaint is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Such a wide power on the part of the court ~ is circumscribed by two factors, viz., (i) the application must be bonafide; (ii) the same should not cause injus- H 48 r PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR. V. 49 REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS. tice to the other side and (iii) it should not affect the right A already accrued to the defendants. (Para 11) [ 54-C] 2.1 It is also not in dispute that in the plaint suit land was described as Revisional Survey No. 165. The village became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a B new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463. However, in the plaint and conse- quently in the preliminary decree as also in the final de- '1 cree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake. (Para 10) [ 53-H; 54-A, B] c 2.2 Appellants are pendente lite purchaser from de- fendant Nos. 3 to 7. A preliminary decree was passed against them. It has attained finality. They were also al- lowed to participate in the final decree proceedings. A fi- D nal decree was also drawn up. It also attained finality. The respective shares of the parties inter se in the joint family property as also the plots of the lands which were required to be allocated respectively in their favour is no longer in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellants, being E purchasers of undivided share in a joint family property, are not entitled to possession of the land what they have purchased. They have in law merely acquired a right to r sue for partition. Appellants merely could have filed a suit for partition either as a plaintiff or defendant in respect of the property which was joint family property. (Paras 12 F and 13) [ 54-D, E, F, G, H] M. VS. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and 0th- ers AIR 1966 SC 470 and Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Others (2008) 7 sec 46 - relied on. G 2.3 The deeds of sale in terms whereof the appellants purchased share in the joint family property, consisted of the suit lands including Town Survey No. 463. It is not the case of any of the party to the suit that the Town Survey No. 462 was the joint family property or could have other- H 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R. A wise been the subject matter of the said suit for partition. (Para 14) [ 54-G, H; 55-A] 1- Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan (2005) 13 SCC 89; Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society B Ltd. and Others (2007) 13 SCC 421 : AIR 2008 SC 225; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Oas (Dead) By LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 - referred to. 2.4 The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. But, in a case of this nature, the same '...- c would be an empty formality. The identity of the suit land has not been changed. It is not a case where one land is being substituted by another. The fact that the town sur- vey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute. It
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.