Appellants sought appellate-stage amendments to a written statement to challenge a 1985 settlement deed and invoke Section 53A TPA protection, plus re-impounding of a 1998 agreement of sale for stamp duty. The High Court dismissed all revisions, finding no illegality in the appellate court's orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 2389. 2252 & 2253 OF 2024
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2389 OF 2024
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2023 in I.A.No.212 of 2022 in AS No. 26 2018 on the file of VII Additional District Judge Gudur.
Between:
...Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants
AND
Kamireddy @ Chintamreddy Jothi, W/o Late Sudhakar Reddy, Aged 57 years, R/o House No. 3-4-30/D, YRR Complex, Pillari Gudi Street, Naidupet Town and Mandal, Tirupathi District.
.>
...Respondent/Respondent/Respondent
\A NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in AS No. 26 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. P Sridhar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. L J Veera Reddy
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2252 OF 2024
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2024 in I.A No. 90 of 2024 in AS No. 26 of 2018 on the file of VII Additional District Judge Gudur.
Between:
...Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants
AND
Kamireddy @ Chintamreddy Jothi, W/o Late Sudhakar Reddy, Aged 57 years, R/o House No. 3-4-30/D, YRR Complex, Pillari Gudi Street, Naidupet Town and Mandal, Tirupathi District.
...Respondent/Respondent/Respondent
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in AS No. 26 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. P Sridhar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. L J Veera Reddy
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2253 OF 2024
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2024 in I.A No. 148 of 2024 in AS No. 26 of 2018 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.
Between:
1. Kamireddy Muni Reddy, (died)
Agriculture, R/o Mannemala Village, Chittamur Mandal, Tirupathi
District.
...Petitioners/Appellants
AND
Kamireddy @ Chintamreddy Jothi, W/o Late Sudhakar Reddy, Aged 57 years, R/o House No. 3-4-30/D, YRR Complex, Pillari Gudi Street, Naidupet Town and Mandal, Tirupathi District.
...Respondent/Respondent/Respondent
lA NO: 1 OF 2074
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in AS No. 26 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. P Sridhar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. L J Veera Reddy
Court made the following Common Order:
APHC010412392024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3311]
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2252. 2253 & 2389/2024
Between:
Kamireddy Muni Reddy(died) and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Kamireddy Chintamreddy Jothi
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.P SRIDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent;
1.L J VEERA REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.2252_2253_2389_2024
COMMON ORDFR
These revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners/petitioners/appellants aggrieved by the orders, dated 08.08.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.90 of 2024, 148 of 2024 and 212 of 2024 in A.S.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.
- C.R.P.No.2252 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 08.08.2024, dismissing I.A.No.90 of 2024; C.R.P.No.2243 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 08.08.2024, dismissing I.A.No.148 of 2024; and, C.R.P,No.2389 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 08.08.2024, dismissing I.A.No.212 of 2022 in A.S.No.26 of 2018.
- I.A.No.90 of 2024 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 & Section 151 CPC with a prayer to amend the written statement by inserting the legal plea that the settlement deed, dated 08.10.1985, is an invalid document and no title would be passed under the said document; I.A.No.148 of 2024 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 & Section 151 CPC with a prayer to amend the written statement by inserting the legal plea that the possession of the 2"'" defendant is protected by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and, I.A.No.212 of 2022 is filed under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 & Section 151 CPC to send the agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998 executed by the plaintiff in
BSBJ C.R.P,Nos.2252_2253_2389_2024
favour of the 2"'^ appellant to the District Registrar, Gudur, for fixing proper stamp duty and collection of the same with penalty.
- The facts, in brief, are as follows; a. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.204 of 2008 is filed by the sole plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 seeking declaration that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court on 11.12.2015 in favour of the plaintiff, by which date, both the defendants 1 and 2 were alive. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.204 of 2008, the defendants 1 & 2 preferred appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2018 before VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. During the pendency of the appeal, both the appellants, i.e., defendants 1 & 2 died. As per orders, dated 16.02.2022, in I.A.No.42 of 2019, the daughters of the deceased appellant No.1/defendant No.1 are impleaded as appellants 3 & 4 in the appeal. Similarly, as per the orders, dated 16.02.2022, in I.A.No.195 of 2019, the son-in-law of the
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.2252_2253_2389_2024
deceased appellant No.2/defendant No.2 was impleaded as appellant No.5 in the appeal.
b. The case of the petitioner No.5/appellant No.5 in support of the applications in I.A.No.90 of 2024 and 148 of 2024, in brief, is as follows: The 2'^'^ defendant filed written statement and the 1 defendant adopted the same. In the written statement, the 2'"'^ defendant did not take the plea that the suit document, i.e., settlement deed, dated 08.10.1985, is an invalid document and title of the plaintiff cannot be declared on the same and hence, the suit is not maintainable and ISi liable to be dismissed. This plea is a legal plea and the same can be taken at any time. Since the 2"‘ defendant died, the petitioners are entitled to seek amendment of the written statement. Therefore, the consequential amendment sought under rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice (C.R.P) in I.A.No.90 of 2024 (C.R.P.No.2252 of 2024) reads as follows;
Add the following as para 10 a) after para 10 of the written statement;
“It is further submitted that this suit is filed by the plaintiff stating that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having got the same under registered settlement deed executed by her father dated 08.10.1985. It is submitted that the property is ancestral property of Varada Reddy and
5
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos,2252_2253_2389_2024
these defendants and their father K. Varada Reddy constitutes a joint undivided family and hence the said K.Varada Reddy cannot execute the settlement deed dated 08.10.1985. Said Varada Reddy died in the year 1988. Hence plaintiff is not a sharer and hence the settlement deed dated 08.10.1985 is not a valid document and no title would be passed to the plaintiff under the said settlement deed. Hence the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and hencethissuit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.”
c. It is the further case of the petitioner No.5/appellant No.5that i r.n the written statement, though the 2"*^ defendant clearlystatedthathe had purchased the plaint schedule property under an agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998, executed by the plaintiff and he is in lawful possession of the property being purchaser under a valid agreement of sale, he had not taken the plea that his possession is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This plea is a legal plea and an extension of the previous plea and the same can be taken at any time and therefore, he was advised to amend the written statement filed by the 2 nd defendant. Therefore, the consequential amendment sought under rule 28 C.R.P in I.A.No.148 of 2024 (C.R.P.No.2253 of 2024) reads as follows;
6
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.2252_2253_2389_2024
It is further submitted that as this defendant’s possession is in pursuance of the agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998 and possession was taken as per the agreement of sale styled as sale deed this defendants possession is protection by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence this suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
d. The case of the petitioner No.5/appellant No.5 in support of the application in I.A.No.212 of 2022, in brief, is as follows:
The 2 defendant did not file the original agreement of sale executed by the plaintiff in the suit along with the written statement as the same was misplaced. The agreement of sale contains the words actually possession was delivered’; and hence, under proviso to Article 47-A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the same is to be treated as sale deed. The agreement was drafted on Rs.20/- stamp papers, i.e., two papers of Rs.10/- each. The document was sent to the District Registrar, Gudur, as per orders, dated 17.04.2013, in I.A.No.267 of 2013. The District Registrar did not fix the stamp duty as the party did not turn up and returned the document to the trial Court. As the stamp duty and penalty were not paid, the document remained unmarked. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.212 of 2022 praying to
7
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.2252_2253_2389_2024
resend the document, i.e., agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 2"'" appellant to the District Registrar, Gudur, for fixing proper stamp duty.
- The respondent/plaintiff filed counter affidavits denying the averments in the petitions and stating briefly as follows:
a. The petitions to amend the written statement were filed at a belated stage, i.e., after 16 years from the date of filing of the suit. During the cross-examination, the appellants 1 & 2 did not say anything about the property owned by their father and they never said that it is the ancestral property. The proposed amendments do not show any important plea necessary for deciding the appeal. Moreover, they admitted in cross-examination that their father settled the plaint schedule landed property to the respondent for her marriage expenses and maintenance and executed a gift settlement deed dated 08.10.1985, and did not deny the document. Therefore, the defendants have no right to amend the pleadings in order to fill up the lacunae. The gift settlement deed is of the year 1985. The petitioner/appellant has no right to question its validity at this stage.
b. The appellant No.5 also filed petition under Order XII , rule 7 CPC vide I.A.No.31 of 2024 for getting back the original agreement of sale. dated 05.09.1998, stating that the said document IS necessary for him
8
BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.2252_2253_2389_2024
for filing the suit for specific performance. The petition was allowed and the agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998 was returned on 25.01.2024. Basing on the same, the appellant No.5 filed suit for specific performance on 04.03.2024, through some other persons in O.S.No.59 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, against the respondent/plaintiff.
c. Further, he filed a petition under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act for re-sending the agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998, to the District Registrar, Gudur, for collection of stamp duty and penalty. The same was dismissed vide I.A.No.212 of 2022 and no revision was preferred against the said orders. The agreement of sale is barred by limitation and therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
- After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed all the petitions holding that the proposed amendments, if permitted, would consume precious time of the Court and would also cause unnecessary delay without any valid purpose. It further held that petition to resend the document to the District Registrar would amount to misuse of process of law and leads to multiplicity of litigation.
- Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred these revision petitions.
9
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.2252_2253_2389 2024
“14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., [2022;INSC:896] has laid down the following principles for the purpose of considering the prayer for the amendment of pleadings:
"Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived,
(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This IS mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
MANU/JK/1262/2023
10
BSB, J C.R.P.Nos,2252^2253_2389_2024
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudicationof the controversy between the parties and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations),
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings,the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs, (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pinpointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
11 BSB,J C.R.P.No5.2252_2253_2389 2024
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint,
(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision,
(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought IS only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarilythe amendment is required to be allowed, (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party,ordivest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment,the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties,the amendment should be allowed." (emphasis added)
12
BSBJ C.R,P,Nos.2252_2253_2389_2024
instance of un-successful defendant at the appellate stage is to be allowed in rarest of rare cases provided that genuine and sustainable reasons are there for allowing such amendment, but where the amendment is sought for withdrawal of the admission made i n the pleadings and with ulterior motive, then the prayer for amendment of the writtenstatement at the appellate stage has to be refused.”
- The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant supported the orders impugned in these revisions.
- The appellate Court observed that the deceased 2"'" defendant failed to take a plea in his written statement filed on 12.02.2009 that his possession is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, basing on the agreement of sale dated, 05.09.1998 , said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 2"'* defendant; that the parties can exercise their rights by applying legal provisions at any point of time and they need not take any specific plea in their pleadings on settled provisions of law; that if the facts are pleaded, there is no need to take any specific plea under law as the Court has duty to apply law and decide the i- issue irrespective of whether such a plea is taken by the party or not; and that the parties can advance arguments on the point.
13
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos,2252_2253_238g_2024
- Admittedly, the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of settlement deed, dated 08.10.1985, executed by her father, The 2"'* defendant pleaded that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with him and executed an agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998. Therefore, the appellate Court observed that when the 2"'’ defendant filed written statement claiming rights over the plaint schedule properties basing on the agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998, it is the duty of the Court to decide whether the defendant No.2 acquired any kind of rights through the agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998 or not and that absence of a specific plea in the written statement that his possession is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not fatal to the case of the appellants 3 to 5, as it is the duty of the Court to apply the relevant law to the given case to resolve the dispute.
- By seeking the amendment of the written statement which was filed long back on 12.02.2009 by the 1 defendant pleading that he had purchased the property under an agreement of sale, dated 05.09.1998, with possession from the plaintiff, now a plea is sought to be introduced that the transferee of the plaintiff had no right to sell the property to the plaintiff because it is an ancestral property. The amendment goes against the contention of 1®' defendant that he has purchased the
14
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.2252_2253_2389_2024
property from the plaintiff by admitting the title of the plaintiff, obviously under the settlement deed only. In other words, the effect of the proposed amendment is to withdraw the admission of the right of the father to execute the settlement deed and the right of the plaintiff to sell the property. In one way, protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is sought to be taken basing on the written agreement of sale with the plaintiff, and the other way, the right of the plaintiff itself is challenged by questioning the right of the father to alienate the property as if ancestral. The defendant is entitled to take inconsistent pleas, but cannot destroy the evidence already given which is as stated in the counter noted above. Thus, the permissions to amend the written statement cannot be accorded. Insofar as the legal plea is concerned, if pleadings and evidence are already on record, it can be raised as rightly held by the appellate Court.
- Insofar as the impounding of the document i - IS concerned, it is to be noted that when ample opportunity was given by the Court to pay nd stamp duty and penalty, it was not availed by the 2 defendant and for that reason, the same was returned back to the trial Court. The present petition IS filed after lapse of 9 years from the date of return of the document, 7 years from the date of the decree and 5 years from the date of appeal. The reasons stated in the counter are tenable. No
15
BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.2252_2253_2389 2024
reason, much less valid reason, is established by the petitioner for not complying the order in this regard passed by the trial Court in his favour. Without any valid reason, the same permission cannot be given time and again as per the wish of a party for mere asking sake. Thus, there is no merit in the petition or ground to interfere with the order of the appellate Court.
- Accordingly, all the revision petitions are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
SDI- P U V BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ If
SECTION OFFICER
SAM sree
HIGH COURT
DATED: 12/11/2024
COMMON ORDER
CRP.Nos.2389, 2252 & 2253 of 2024
o
3 X
2 3 JAN 2C25 1
Current Section . ^
DISMISSING THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Should the appellate-stage amendments to the written statement pleading invalidity of the settlement deed and Section 53A protection be allowed?
Should the agreement of sale be re-sent to the District Registrar for impounding and collection of stamp duty and penalty years after return?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kiran v. Balbir Singh Jamwal and OthersReferred¶10
Kiran vs. Balbir Singh Jamwal and Ors.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Kamireddy Muni Reddy (died)
Kamireddy Ramana Reddy (died)
Kamireddy Sumathi
Kamireddy Suneetha
Vakati Gopi Reddy
Kamireddy @ Chintamreddy Jothi
B S Bhanumathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
