2006 (3) TMI 807 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Amendment of plaint converting suit for declaration into one for possession
- Plea of limitation raised by defendants
- Interpretation of cause of action
- Finding of District Judge on limitation

Analysis:

1. The case involved a revision petition where the suit was initially filed for a declaration regarding the sale of agricultural land being an alienation of ancestral property without legal necessity. The trial court dismissed the suit, and during the appeal process, the vendor passed away. The plaintiffs sought an amendment to convert the suit into one for possession, which was allowed by the District Judge. However, the defendants raised a plea of limitation, which was upheld by the District Judge, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

2. The District Judge's reasoning for considering the suit as time-barred was based on the belief that the suit for possession should have been instituted within three years of obtaining the declaratory decree. The judge referred to legal precedents regarding the amendment of plaints dating back to the original filing date and the impact on limitation periods. However, the cause of action was questioned, as the real trigger for the litigation was the alienation of the property, not the subsequent events leading to the amendment of the plaint.

3. The concept of cause of action was thoroughly discussed, emphasizing that it is not related to the defense raised by the defendant or the relief sought by the plaintiff. Cause of action encompasses all the material facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove to succeed in the suit. The District Judge's focus on the death of the alienor as the cause of action was deemed incorrect, as the actual cause of action was the alienation of the property years before.

4. Ultimately, the High Court found the District Judge's decision on limitation to be erroneous and set it aside. The case was remanded for further proceedings, highlighting that the suit was not time-barred, and the plaintiffs were entitled to pursue their claim for possession. The revision petition was accepted, directing the District Judge to proceed with the case in accordance with the law, with costs to be borne by the plaintiffs.