IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND (2ND) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5490 of 2008 Between: Bojanapu Surendera & others … Petitioners And: Kondapannagari Obul Reddy (Died) & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5490 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.09.2008 in IA No.417 of 2007 in OS No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein-defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. The petitioners herein filed written statement contesting the suit. While so, the respondents herein filed IA No.417 of 2007 seeking amendment of the plaint by adding the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 15.05.1995 executed by one Krishnareddy in favour of the defendants, which was registered on 01.06.2007 is null and void and also to declare that the plaintiffs’ right and title to the plaint schedule property. The respondents/plaintiffs proposed certain consequential amendments also including valuation of the relief at Rs.8,12,025/- being half of the market value of the plaint schedule property, which is stated to be valued at Rs.16,24,050/- and proposing the court fee of Rs.10,666/- to be paid under Section 24(b) of the AP CF & SV Act. 4. According to the respondents, in a partition between the first plaintiff and his brother Krishnareddy, the plaint schedule land was allotted to the share of the first plaintiff in the family arrangement dated 22.06.1989 and ever since the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The plaintiffs alleged that on account of the misunderstandings between the brothers, Krishna Reddy tried to commit breach of compromise under the family arrangement owing to the spurt in the value of the suit property and the 2nd plaintiff filed suit for partition in OS No.79 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, (later it was transferred and renumber as OS No.381 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler). During the pendency of the said suit, Krishna Reddy died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 3 to 7 and the matter ended in compromise and as per the compromise, final decree dated 28.06.1996 was passed, in which the plaint schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants 1 to 3 having no rights in the suit property, attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit land, wherein groundnut, maize and horse gram crops were raised. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction. 5. The defendants filed written statement inter alia contending that the suit land is a joint family property of the first plaintiff and their brothers and that it was purchased by Krishnareddy on 14.07.1969 and it constituted his self acquired property and he sold the same to the defendants 1 to 3 on 15.05.1995 under a sale deed. According to the defendants, the sale deed could not be registered because of disputes over the stamp duty payable thereon and ultimately, the sale deed was registered on 01.06.2007. 6. The plaintiffs therefore sought amendment of the plaint by seeking a declaratory relief, as the defendants are asserting title over the suit land under sale deed dated 15.05.1995, which was registered on 01.06.2007. The petitioners herein opposed the said application by filing a counter and contending that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and alter the cause of action and introduces altogether a new case and the relief of declaration now sought is also barred by limitation. The petitioners further contended that two reliefs in the nature of declaration were prayed for but however only one relief is valued for the proposed amendment, which is not permissible. 7. The learned Senior Civil Judge by impugned order allowed the said application observing that the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 15.05.1995 is null and void, and the other relief of plaintiffs’ declaration of title and the valuation of the main relief of declaration and payment of court fee thereon is sufficient. It was further held in the impugned order that the proposed amendment would help to resolve the real dispute between the parties in a comprehensive manner. 8. The suit is originally filed for permanent injunction and in the plaint the plaintiffs have asserted their title and possession over the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was the joint family property of themselves and their brother Krishna Reddy and under a family arrangement deed dated 22.06.1989, it was allotted to the share of the first plaintiff, but subsequently due to misunderstandings between the brothers, Krishna Reddy raised a dispute and the 2nd plaintiff filed a suit for partition, which resulted in a compromise and final decree was passed, where under the suit land was allotted to the share of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs therefore claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land ever since in their own right. In the written statement, the defendants set up title in themselves by claiming the land as self acquired property and they purchased the same from Krishna Reddy under sale deed dated 15.05.1995. It is to be noted that the said sale deed was not registered till 01.06.2007 i.e., subsequent to filing of the suit. Admittedly, un-registered sale deed does not effect transfer of title in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit land. It is only when the sale deed is registered it becomes valid conveyance transferring the title in favour of the vendee. The registration of the said sale deed dated 15.05.1995 took place on 01.06.2007, during pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs could no longer ignore the claim of the defendants regarding assertion of the title and therefore sought a declaratory relief by way of amendment. The cause of action for seeking the said declaratory relief arose only subsequent to filing of the suit. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proposed amendment would alter the nature and character of the suit. In that connection, he relied upon the decision of the Apex court in ‘Revajeetu Builders vs. Narayanaswamy[1]’ wherein certain principles that are to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment are set out, which are as follows: “Some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (i) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (ii) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (iii) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (iv) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (v) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (vi) as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. The fact that the claim is barred by the law of limitation is but one of the factors to be taken into account by the Court in exercising the discretion as to whether the amendment should be allowed or refused, but it does not affect the power of the Court if the amendment is required in the interest of justice.” 10. It cannot be disputed for a moment that the proposed amendment would certainly help in resolving the real dispute between the parties in effective and comprehensive manner. It cannot also be said that the proposed amendment is vitiated by any mala fides, inasmuch as the cause of action for seeking the declaratory relief arose only subsequent to filing of the suit. No prejudice would also be caused to the defendant by allowing the amendment, because the defendants would be given ample opportunity to file additional written statement. It will be open to the defendants to file additional written statement raising all contentions, which they have stated in the counter filed in the present application. The question as to whether or not the relief of declaration of title is barred by limitation, is a matter to be considered during the course of trial, in view of the fact that the registration of the sale deed took place only on 01.06.2007 though the sale deed is dated 15.05.1995. Similarly, it is open for the trial court to frame necessary issues regarding the dispute over the valuation of the reliefs and payment of court fee and to give a finding thereon. It is not a case where the plaintiffs could have pleaded for the declaratory relief at the time of filing the suit itself but still failed to do so. The necessity for seeking such a relief arose only subsequent to filing of the suit with the registration of the sale deed on 01.06.2007. The above decision also makes it clear that the question of limitation does not affect the power of the court if the amendment is required in the interest of justice. The decision cited does not therefore come to the rescue of the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision in ‘A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd., v. Damodar Valley Corpn.[2]’, wherein the apex Court while dealing with the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, held as follows: “These indicate that the amendment should be in such manner as may be just and that, as a rule, all such amendments shall be made as be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. No amendment would be just if it so prejudices the interests of the other party for which that party cannot get any relief from the Court. The amendments which must he allowed can be those in the absence of which the Court may not be able to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. The real question in controversy must be gathered only from the plaint and to some extent from the allegations in the written statement.” 12. In the present case also, the proposed amendment is necessary for resolving the real dispute between the parties regarding the title. Even in the original plaint also, the plaintiffs asserted their title by disclosing the source of their title. In the written statement, the defendants have set up a title in themselves under the sale deed dated 15.05.1995 but the registration of the document took place only on 01.06.2007 subsequent to filing of the suit, necessitating the plaintiffs to seek a declaration of their title. Though the suit is originally filed only for injunction, in view of the subsequent developments, the real controversy between the parties is in respect of the title over the suit land and for resolving such controversy, the proposed amendment is certainly required to be made. 13. In ‘South Konkan Distilleries v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik[3]’, the apex court held as follows: “One of the cardinal principles of law allowing or rejecting an application for amendment of the pleading is that the courts generally, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of filing of the application. But that would be a factor to be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion as to whether the amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the interest of justice. It is well settled that the court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment, if the court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is also equally well settled that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed. It is always open to the court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that allowing of an amendment shall really sub serve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation.” 14. In the above decision, it was also observed that ‘even if there is arguable issue with regard to point of limitation, the court should allow amendment and frame an issue on the question whether the amended claim was barred by law of limitation’. 15. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision and in view of the fact that the proposed amendment is required to be made for resolving the real dispute between the parties in effective and comprehensive manner and the need for seeking the proposed amendment arose in view of the development that took place subsequent to filing of the suit and that the proposed amendment does not in any manner cause prejudice to the defence of the defendants, it is held that the plaintiffs can be permitted to amend the plaint as proposed. It is however left open for the trial Court to consider after framing necessary issues, the contentions raised by the defendants regarding the limitation and also valuation of the reliefs and the court fee payable thereon. It is needless to state that on such amendment of the plaint, the defendants would be entitled to file additional written statement raising all such contentions, which are permissible under law. 16. In the circumstances, the impugned order allowing the application for amendment of the plaint does not therefore call for any interference by this court. 17. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.08.2011 bss [1] (2009)10 SCC 84 [2] AIR 1967 SC 96 [3] AIR 2009 SC 1177