PURAN RAM versus BHAGURAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 29-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 663 
• 
.. ~ 
PURAN RAM 
A 
v. 
BHAGURAM AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1673 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 29, 2008 
8 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
• 
.. 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s. 26 - Rectification of 
instrument - Suit for specific performance of agreement for 
sale - Part of suit property wrongly described by mutual c 
mistake in the agreement for sale and in the plaint - Prayer 
for amendment of plaint and agreement for sale to correct a 
part of description of suit property - Permissibility of - Held: 
Permissible by virtue of proviso to s.26- The relief claimed in 
the suit would remain same and would not change the nature D 
•• 
of suit from suit for specific performance to suit for declaration 
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 r. 17. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 r. 17 -Amendment 
application - Held: Can be allowed by court in its discretion 
even where the relief sought to be added by amendment is 
E 
barred by limitation. 
The parties entered into agreement for sale of suit 
property. Appellant-purchaser paid a sum of Rs.50,0001· 
... 
~ 
to the respondent-vendor. By virtue of this payment, 
respondent no.1 put the appellant in possession of the 
F 
property and also agreed to execute the sale deed on 
receiving a further sum of Rs.1,50,0001· from the appellant 
within 30 days. Respondent No.1 received the balance 
consideration and executed an agreement to sell and 
power of Attorney in favour of appellant. However, he G 
failed to execute the sale deed. 
, -., 
The appellant filed a suit for specific perto·rmance of 
contract for sale and for permanent injunction in respect 
663 
H 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A of the suit property. In the plaint, appellant described the 
suit property as falling in Chak No. 3 SSM. When the 
description of a part of the suit property was found to be 
a mutual mistake, appellant filed an application under 
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking the amendment of the plaint 
B and for giving the description of the suit property as Chak 
No.3 SLM. The trial Court rejected the prayer for 
amendment of the plaint on the ground that plaint was 
filed on the basis of agreement to sell and since no prayer 
was made for amending the agreement, the application 
c for amendment of the plaint could not be allowed. 
The appellant filed another application for 
amendment of the plaint seeking amendment this time not 
only of the plaint but also of the agreement to sell. The 
First Appellate Court allowed the said application. 
D Aggrieved respondent No.2, who was purchaser of suit 
property, from respondent no.1 filed a petition under 
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. High Court allowed 
the petition on the ground that relief sought for by the 
appellant by way of amendment of the plaint could not be 
E allowed in view of the expiry of the period of limitation; 
and that if such amendment was allowed, the nature of 
the suit would change from a suit for specific performance 
of contract for sale to a suit for declaration which was not 
permissible. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In a suit for specific performance of contract 
for sale, it is permissible to amend a part of the description 
of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the 
G agreement in terms of s.26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 
A reading of the two conditions made under s.26 of the 
Act show that either party may institute a suit to have the 
• 
.. .. 
.. ... 
instrument rectified or a party who has already filed a suit 
• ' 
in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue 
H may claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified. 
• 
... . 
.. 
, + 
PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR. 
665 
The main issue in the instant suit for specific performance A 
of the contract for sale was relating to the agreement for 
sale in which a part of the description of the suit property 
was wrongly given by mutual mistake and therefore, 
needed to be amended. S.26, of course, says that it would 
be open to a party to institute a suit for correcting the B 
description of the suit property, but the proviso to s.26 
clearly permits that where a party has not claimed any 
such relief in his pleading, the court shall at any stage of 
the proceeding allow him to amend the plaint on such 
terms as may be just for including such claim. From a plain c 
reading of the provisions under s.26 of the Act, there is 

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