Allowed¶50

Uppumakkal Eali (Died) v. Leelamma Devassia

Kerala HC21 Mar 2025OP(C)/1897/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint - relation-back doctrine; Kerala HC OP(C) 1897/2017 (K. Babu, J., 21.03.2025): Exts.P5 and P8 of Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery (I.A.Nos.1235/2015 and 11/2016 in O.S.No.292/2012, suit on gift deed No.1225/1997 dated 24.06.1997 for declaration of undue influence and fraud) set aside for want of reasons; trial Court to reconsider amendment application afresh; relies on Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 559; reasons held essential attribute of judicial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P5 and P8 orders set aside; matter remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.1235/2015 in O.S.No.292/2012; Original Petition disposed of accordingly. ¶50

Uppumakkal Eali (Died) Vs Leelamma Devassia — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Exts.P5 and P8 orders set aside; matter remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.1235/2015 in O.S.No.292/2012; Original Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the condition imposed in Ext.P5 - that the permitted amendment shall relate back to the suit only from the date of the amendment application (30.06.2015) rather than the date of the suit - was properly made, the order containing no reason for imposing the condition. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

While an amendment once incorporated ordinarily relates back to the date of the suit, the doctrine of relation-back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not of universal application; in appropriate cases the court permitting an amendment is competent to direct that it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and shall be deemed to have been brought before the court on the date on which the amendment application was filed (principle adopted from Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 559).

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Providing reasons in orders is an essential attribute of judicial proceedings; every litigant who approaches the court is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of the prayer, and reasons are essential for the parties to make the remedy of appeal meaningful; the learned trial judge failed to assign reasons in the impugned orders.

¶48

Key takeaways

Exts.P5 and P8 stand set aside; the matter is remitted to the trial Court, which shall consider I.A.No.1235/2015 in O.S.No.292/2012 afresh.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kerala High Court (Ernakulam), K. Babu, J. - OP(C) No.1897 of 2017, decided 21.03.2025: Challenge to Exts.P5 and P8 orders of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery in I.A.Nos.1235/2015 and 11/2016 in O.S.No.292/2012 (suit for declaration that gift deed No.1225/1997 dated 24.06.1997 of S.R.O, Thalassery was executed by undue influence and fraud; amendment sought to add a prayer for setting aside the gift deed). The trial Court had allowed the amendment subject to the condition that it relate back only to the date of the amendment application (30.06.2015), and had dismissed the review petition. Held: (i) the doctrine of relation-back in amendment of pleadings is not of universal application; in appropriate cases the court permitting an amendment may direct that it take effect from the date of the amendment application (Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 559); (ii) providing reasons in orders is an essential attribute of judicial proceedings, and the learned trial judge failed to assign reasons in the impugned orders. Exts.P5 and P8 were set aside and the trial Court directed to consider I.A.No.1235/2015 afresh; the Original Petition was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:KER:24377

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

OP(C) NO. 1897 OF 2017

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS NO.292 OF 2012 OF ASSISTANT
SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT,
THALASSERY

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

*UPPUMAKKAL EALI (DIED)
AGED 92 YEARS, W/O MATHAI,AGED 92 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AARUMAKKAL,KANICHAR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.
MANATHANA,THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

*ADDITIONAL P1 TO P3 IMPLEADED.

¶11

IT IS RECORDED THAT THE PETITIONER IS NO MORE VIDE
ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 IN MEMO DATED 25.09.2018.

¶12

ADDL. P1JOY A M

¶13

AGED 44 YEARS, S/O MATHAYI, DRIVER, RESIDING AT
AARUMAKKAL, KANICHAR AMSOM DESOM P O, MANATHANA,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

ADDL. P2 BENNY A M AGED 43 YEARS

¶15

S/O MATHAYI, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT AARUMAKKAL,
KANICHAR AMSOM DESOM P O, MANATHANA,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

ADDL. P3BINU MATHEW A M
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O MATHAYI, EMPLOYED ABROAD,
RESIDING AT AARUMAKKAL, KANICHAR AMSOM DESOM P O,
MANATHANA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

(PETITIONER DIED. ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 11/02/2019 IN I.A.NO
1/2019)

¶18

OP(C) NO. 1897 OF 2017

¶19

¶20

2025:KER:24377

¶21

BY ADVS.
DR V N SANKARJEE
V.N.MADHUSUDANAN(K/687/1997)
M.M.VINOD(K/778/2002)
M.SUSEELA(K/6/2009)
KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN(K/001715/2018)
VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K.(K/001575/2019)
C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR(K/000433/2017)
NITHEESH.M(K/112/2021)
SUKANYA S.(K/705/2022)
KRIPA KRISHNA(K/000902/2018)

¶22

RESPONDENT:

¶23

LEELAMMA DEVASSIA
AGED 65 YEARS, D/O MATHAI, NOW RESIDING AT
MANNANCHERIL,VAYATHUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.
ULIKKAL,THALASSERY.

¶24

BY ADV K.V.MANOJ KUMAR

¶25

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶26

OP(C) NO. 1897 OF 2017

¶27

2025:KER:24377

¶28

¶29

K.BABU, J.

¶30

O.P (C) No.1897 of 2017

¶31

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2025

¶32

J UDGMENT

¶33

The challenge in this Original Petition is to Exts.P5 and P8 orders passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery, in I.A.Nos.1235/2015 and 11/2016 in O.S.No.292/2012 respectively.

¶34

The plaintiff is the petitioner. The plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that a gift deed No.1225/1997 dated 24.06.1997 of S.R.O, Thalassery was executed by undue influence and fraud. The plaintiff sought for incorporation of amendments in the plaint so as to include a prayer for setting aside the gift deed in question. The trial Court allowed the application as per Ext.P5 order, which reads thus:-

¶35

“In the result the petition is allowed. The plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint as prayed for on condition that the amendment will relate back to the suit from the date of amendment application, that is 30.06.2015. Carry out amendment and furnish amended copy of the plaint.”

¶36

OP(C) NO. 1897 OF 2017

¶37

¶38

2025:KER:24377

¶39

The plaintiff filed a review petition seeking to review the order to the extent it imposed a condition that the amendment would relate back to the suit from the date of amendment application. The trial Court dismissed the application as per Ext.P8 order.

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

¶41

It is contended that Ext.P5 order does not

¶42

contain the reason for putting the condition that the amendment would relate back to the suit from the date of amendment application.

¶43

An amendment once incorporated relates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation-back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of universal application and in appropriate cases the court is competent, while permitting an amendment, to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the court on the date on which the application seeking the amendment was filed (vide: Sampath

¶44

OP(C) NO. 1897 OF 2017

¶45

2025:KER:24377

¶46

¶47

Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr. [(2002) 7 SCC 559] ).

¶48

Providing reasons in orders is an essential attribute of judicial proceedings. The reason is the very life of the law. Every litigant who approaches the court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such prayer. Reasons are also essential for either of the parties to the lis to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into a final decision which may be subject to examination of the higher courts. The learned trial judge failed to assign reasons in the impugned orders.

¶49

The impugned orders Ext.P5 and P8 stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court. The trial Court shall consider I.A.No.1235/2015 in O.S.No.292/2012 afresh.

¶50

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶51

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶52

¶53

OP(C) NO. 1897 OF 2017

¶54

2025:KER:24377

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1897/2017

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE` `THE S`	`COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.292` `UBORDINATE COURT, THALASS`	`/2012 FILED BEFORE` `ERY.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE` `O.S.2` `THALA`	`COPY OF THE WRITTE` `92/2012 FILED BEFORE THE` `SSERY.`	`N STATEMENT IN` `SUBORDINATE COURT,`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE` `I.A.1`	`COPY OF THE AMEND` `235/2015 IN O.S.NO.292/20`	`MENT APPLICATION` `12.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE` `O.S.N`	`COPY OF THE COUNTER IN` `O.292/2012.`	`I.A.1235/2015 IN`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE` `15.10`	`COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE` `.2015 IN I.A.1235/2015 IN`	`TRIAL COURT DATED` `O.S.NO.292/2012.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE` `O.S.N`	`COPY OF THE REVIEW PETIT` `O.292/2016.`	`ION NO.11/2016 IN`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE` `IN` `O.S.N`	`COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED` `I.A.(REVIEW` `PETITION` `O.292/2012.`	`BY THE RESPONDENT` `)NO.11/2016` `IN`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE` `I.A.1`	`COPY OF THE ORDER` `1/2016 IN O.S.292/2012.`	`DATED 4.2.2017`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE` `SUBMI` `POLIC`	`COPY OF THE COMPLAINT` `TTED BEFORE THE DEPUTY` `E, PERAVUR WITH RECEIPT`	`DATED 25.5.2022` `SUPERINTENDENT OF`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE` `SUBMI` `KELAK`	`COPY OF THE COMPLAINT` `TTED BEFORE THE SUB INS` `AM WITH RECEIPT`	`DATED 25.5.2022` `PECTOR OF POLICE,`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE` `SUBMI` `KELAK`	`COPY OF THE COMPLAINT` `TTED BEFORE THE CIRCLE IN` `AM`	`DATED 25.5.2022` `SPECTOR OF POLICE,`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE` `STATE`	`PHOTOGRAPHS (15 IN NUM` `OF AFFAIRS IN THE PLAINT`	`BER) SHOWING THE` `SCHEDULE PROPERTY`

¶59

OP(C) NO. 1897 OF 20172025:KER:24377

¶60

¶61

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.6.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 5160/2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶62

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 5.7.2022 IN CRIME NO. 421/2022 OF THE KELAKOM POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶63

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.7.2022 IN W.P. (C) NO. 5160/2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Uppumakkal Eali (Died) v. Leelamma Devassia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppumakkal Eali (Died) v. Leelamma Devassia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aboobackar Siddique Vs Abdul Razak

Varghese Vs Power Grid Corporation of India

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Vs v. Varghese

B.R.Sasidharan Vs Abdulla

Teliz Realtors Vs Jtl Projects Private Limited

Saraswathiamma Vs Manuel