2015 (8) TMI 1435 - SC - Indian Laws

Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his servants and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property - Held that - It is not disputed that Article 58 of the Limitation Act would apply to the amended plaint inasmuch as it sought to add the relief of declaration of title to the already existing relief for grant of permanent injunction. It is clear that the present amendment of the plaint is indeed time-barred in that the right to sue for declaration of title first arose on 16th May, 1990 when in the very first written statement the defendant had pleaded, in para 13 in particular, that the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable in that the plaintiff had failed to establish title with possession over the suit property. Doctrine of relation back insofar as it applies to amendments made under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Held that - It is clear that the doctrine of relation back would not apply to the facts of this case for the reason that the court which allowed the amendment expressly allowed it subject to the plea of limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or extraordinary circumstances in the present case to warrant the doctrine of relation back applying so that a legal right that had accrued in favour of the defendant should be taken away. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction without establishing title.
2. Dispute regarding the identity of the suit schedule property.
3. Plea of limitation in the context of amendment of the plaint to include a declaration of title.
4. Application of the doctrine of relation back to the amendment of the plaint.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit for Permanent Injunction Without Establishing Title:

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1386 of 1990 sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, asserting absolute ownership and possession of the suit property. The defendant, in his written statement dated 16th May 1990, contested the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish title over the suit property. The trial court, in its judgment dated 10th March 1999, dismissed O.S. No. 1386 of 1990, agreeing with the defendant's contention that the plaintiff had not established title. This issue was pivotal as the plaintiff's inability to establish title rendered the suit for injunction unsustainable.

2. Dispute Regarding the Identity of the Suit Schedule Property:

Both parties filed cross suits claiming ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. The trial court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the properties, whose report highlighted the dispute concerning the identity of the properties. The High Court, in its judgment dated 28th March 2002, noted that the dispute was about the identity of the properties and the declaration of right and title over them. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to resolve the identity dispute.

3. Plea of Limitation in the Context of Amendment of the Plaint to Include a Declaration of Title:

After the High Court's remand, the plaintiff amended the plaint on 1st April 2002 to include a prayer for the declaration of title. The defendant filed an additional written statement on 1st August 2002, arguing that the new plea for declaration of title was time-barred. The trial court, in its judgment dated 16th April 2009, rejected the limitation plea, stating that the defendant had admitted the plaintiff's title in the original written statement, and the denial of title in the additional written statement was the first instance of such denial. However, the High Court, in its judgment dated 5th March 2015, reversed this decision, holding that the original written statement dated 16th May 1990 had already denied the plaintiff's title, and the amendment was time-barred as it was introduced long after the three-year limitation period.

4. Application of the Doctrine of Relation Back to the Amendment of the Plaint:

The plaintiff argued that the amendment to the plaint should relate back to the original filing date of the suit (9th March 1990), thus falling within the limitation period. However, the High Court, referencing Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and relevant case law, concluded that the right to sue for declaration of title first arose on 16th May 1990 when the defendant denied the plaintiff's title. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the doctrine of relation back would not apply as the High Court had expressly allowed the amendment subject to the plea of limitation. The Supreme Court emphasized that there were no special or extraordinary circumstances to warrant applying the doctrine of relation back, which would otherwise deprive the defendant of a legitimate defense accrued by lapse of time.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the amended plea for declaration of title was time-barred and the doctrine of relation back did not apply. The plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was unsustainable without establishing title, and the dispute over the identity of the properties required resolution. The plea of limitation was crucial, and the amendment to include a declaration of title was deemed time-barred, reinforcing the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in civil litigation.

← Previous Next →