9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of amendment of the plaint seeking declaration of a gift deed. 2. Effect of limitation on seeking amendment of the plaint. 3. Accrued rights and refusal of amendment by the Court. Analysis: The case involves a Partition Suit where the appellant sought to amend the plaint to declare a gift deed as ineffective and not binding. The respondents contended that the appellant lost the right to seek the declaration due to limitation. The High Court set aside the order allowing the amendment, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the amendment did not alter the nature of the suit or the relief sought, which was partition of the property. The respondents claimed that the registration of the gift deed was a notice to all parties and that the appellant delayed seeking the declaration, thus losing the right by limitation. The Supreme Court analyzed the situation and referred to previous judgments. It highlighted that amendments are generally allowed unless they take away accrued rights. The Court emphasized that if an amendment merely clarifies an existing pleading without adding fresh allegations or reliefs, the question of limitation does not apply. However, in cases where accrued rights are affected, the Court may refuse the amendment. In this case, the gift deed was executed and registered in 1978, providing notice to all parties. The Court noted that the appellant delayed seeking the amendment for three years after the respondents pleaded about the gift in their written statement. Allowing the amendment would defeat the accrued rights of the respondents. Therefore, the High Court was correct in refusing to grant permission for the amendment. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without costs, upholding the High Court's decision to disallow the amendment of the plaint due to the impact on the accrued rights of the respondents.
|
