The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to amend a suit seeking permanent injunction to one seeking declaration of ownership. The court held the amendment converts the suit's character and is barred by limitation.
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.
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.42526 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N.L. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE C. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT NO.1654/20, II MAIN ROAD RAMAMOHANPURAM BANGALORE-560021 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NANDA KUMAR B.L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/ATNO.134/1, "A" BLOCK H.A.F. POST, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560024 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHRISHAIL. A. HUBLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANN-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-32), BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.4782/2010 DATED:23.07.2015 ON IA NO.3 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
2
ORDER
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
3
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
4
record the evidence evidencing that he is in possession of the suit schedule property or he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, but he cannot seek for a declaration that the certificate issued in respect of Site No.61 is fabricated and not binding on the plaintiff. It is aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is before this Court.
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
5
under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC needs to be allowed.
The sites having formed, the same have been allotted to several individuals. The plaintiff has been filing false suits and the claims of the petitioner-plaintiff have already been negatived in various Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals. The present suit is one more attempt made by the plaintiff only to harass the defendant and for no other purpose. The trial Court has rightly considered the matter and rejected the application.
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
6
Counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
7
that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property.
to have been invited on account of the written statement filed by the defendant. But the second contention which has been sought for viz., 'to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the property' is one which was always available for the plaintiff even prior to filing of the suit. When juxtaposing the Possession Certificate of the year 1969 and the earlier proceedings which
had been going on between the parties, more so, the Possession Certificate had been produced
in Writ Petition filed in the year 2008 in W.P.No.12669/2008, the plaintiff being in full knowledge of the said Possession Certificate and rights of the defendant. If at all, the plaintiff wanted to agitate his rights of ownership, the plaintiff ought to have done so at that point of
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
8
time. The plaintiff cannot now seek to convert the suit being one for injunction into declaration by filing an amendment application. The amendment application would have to be considered in terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS.
NARAYANASWAMY & SONS reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 , the guidelines laid down therein are extracted hereunder for easy
reference.
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
9
These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order VI Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive."
W.P. NO.42526 OF 2015
10
exfacie barred by law of limitation. Hence, on both these grounds, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC ought to have been dismissed.
dismissed.
Prs*
Sd/JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court properly rejected an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend a suit for permanent injunction to one for declaration of ownership.
Whether converting a suit for permanent injunction into a suit for declaration changes the character and nature of the case.
Whether the proposed amendment is barred by the law of limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. NARAYANASWAMY & SONSRelied on¶51
Revajetu Builders & Developers vs Narayanaswamy & Sons reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri. N.L. Narasimhaiah
Sri. Venkatarayappa
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
