RADHIKA DEVI versus BAJRANGI SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 768 · Decided: 18-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RADHIKA DEVI 
v. 
BAJRANGI SINGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 18, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 : 
Order 6 Rule 17-Ame11dme11t of plai11t-Pa1ty acquires right by bar of 
C limitation-ff it is solight to be taken away by amendme11t of the pleading, 
such amendment should be refused. 
• 
Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabmwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kaba1wala, 
[1964] 2 SCR 567, held applicable . 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 27l9 of 
1996. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.93 of the Patna High Court 
in C.R. No. 1657 of 1992. 
S.K. Sinha for the. Appellant. 
S.B. Sanyal, Anil K. Jha and Mrs. Alka Jha for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
We have heard learned counsel for both sides. 
Leave granted. 
The appellant has instituted Partition Suit No. 24/88 in the Court of 
Subordinate Judge, Aurangabad for partition of certain properties. 
Respondents 16 to 20 herein filed written statement on June 15, 1988 
G wherein they pleaded that Ramdeo· Singh had executed and registered a 
gift deed in their favour on July 28, 1978 bequeathing the properties 
' 
covered thereunder. They became owners of those lands and the appellant 
is bound by the same. Pending the suit, the appellant filed an application 
under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC on November 11, 1992 seeking declaration 
H that the gift deed was obtained by the respondents illegally and fraudulently 
768 
( 
,.. . 
-
t 
RADHIKADEV!v. BAIRANGISINGH 
769 
and, therefore, it was ineffective and does not bind the appellant. Though A 
the trial Court by order dated November 24, 1992 allowed the petition, the 
High Court in Revision No. 1657/92 by order dated August 13, 1993 
allowed the petition and set aside the order directing amendment of the 
plaint. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
Shri S.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that 
the appellant had no knowledge of the execution of the gift deed by 
Ramdeo Singh and by the amendment of the plaint, the appellant is not 
defeating the right of the respondents but is merely ~eeking to avoid the 
gift deed executed which was detrimental to appellant's right, title and 
interest in the property. Therefore, the amendment does not alter either 
B 
c 
the character of the suit or the nature and the relief already sought, viz., 
partition of the property. Shri Sanyal, the learned senior counsel for the 
respondents, contended that the appellant< had lost the right to seek the 
above declaration as being barred by limitation. The registration of the 
document is a notice to everyone claiming any right, title and interest D 
therein; even otherwise, the respondents in the written statement filed on 
June 15, 1988 has specifically pleaded about the gift being made by Ram-
deo Singh in their favour. Despite that, the appellant had not taken any 
steps till November 1992 by which time even the suit for declaration within 
the limitation of three years from the date of knowledge had got time-
barred. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to amend the plaint which E 
would prejudicially affect the rights of the respondents. 
We find no force in the contention of the appellant. No doubt, the 
amendment of the plaint is normally granted and only in exceptional cases 
where the accrued rights are taken away by amendment of the pleading, F 
the Ceurt would refuse the amendment. This Court in Laxmidas Dahyabhai 
Kaba1wala v. Nanabhai Chwzilal Kabarwala, [(1964) 2 SCR 567 at 582] held 
thus: 
11It is, no doubt, true that, save in exceptional cases, leave to amend 
under 0.6, r.17 of the Code will ordinarily be refused when the G 
effect of the amendment would be to take away from a party a 
legal right which had accrued to him bay lapse of time. But this 
rule can apply only when either fresh allegations added or fresh 
reliefs sought by way of amendment. Where, for instance, an 
amendment is sought which merely clarifies an existing pleading H 
A 
B 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
and does not in substance add to or alter it, it has never been held 
that the question of a bar of limitation is one of the questions to 
be considered in allowing such clarification of a matter already 
contained in the original pleading. The present is a fortiori so. The 
defendants here were not seeking lo add any allegation nor to claim 
any fresh relief which they had prayed for in the pleading already 
filed." 
In that case this Court considered the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.