Dismissed¶66

Krishnaveni v. Padmavathi

Madras HC6 Jul 2026CRP/1985/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Belated amendment of plaint; amendment sought after more than 9 years to add prayer declaring sale deed dated 22.06.2000 null and void; Article 59 and Article 58 Limitation Act 1963; Section 31 Specific Relief Act 1963; non est document; limitation for declaration and cancellation of instrument; Article 227 Constitution of India; CRP dismissed; Additional District Judge (FTC) Vellore; O.S.No.39 of 2015; Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; direction to dispose of suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs. Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit within six months from receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by any observations in this order; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No.8876 of 2026) closed. ¶66

Krishnaveni Vs Padmavathi — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' amendment application (I.A.No.7 of 2025) seeking to amend the suit prayer to include a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 is null and void is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The Trial Court rightly concluded that the amendment application filed by the petitioners at the fag end of trial is barred by limitation, being hit by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and this Court finds no infirmity in the reasons given by the Trial Court for dismissing it.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no bearing to the facts of the instant case, since unlike in those decisions, it cannot be prima facie established that the disputed sale deed dated 22.06.2000 is non est in the eye of law.

¶60

Key takeaways

Under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period to cancel or set aside an instrument is three years, running from the date the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside first become known to him.ratio¶58
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act does not provide for any exception to the applicability of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶59
Placing reliance on Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act has no bearing for deciding an application for amendment seeking to amend the suit prayer to include the relief of declaration that a document is null and void.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.) dismisses a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22.08.2025 in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.39 of 2015 (Additional District Judge (FTC), Vellore), whereby the plaintiffs' application to amend the suit prayer to include a declaration that a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2000, executed by their grandfather, is null and void was dismissed as barred by limitation. Held: (i) under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation for cancellation or setting aside of an instrument is three years from when the facts entitling cancellation first become known; the defendants' written statement, filed in 2016, traced their title from the impugned sale deed, and the amendment was sought only after more than nine years from the filing of the suit; (ii) Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides no exception to the applicability of Article 59, and reliance on it has no bearing while deciding an application for amendment of the prayer; (iii) the petitioners could not prima facie establish that the sale deed is non est in the eye of law, so the decisions cited by them (Unni v. Kunchi Amma, 1891 ILR 14 MAD 26; Prem Singh v. Birbal, 2006 (4) Supreme 69) had no bearing to the facts. No infirmity in the Trial Court's order; CRP dismissed with no costs, with a direction to dispose of the 2015 suit within six months uninfluenced by the observations; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

¶1

CRP No. 1985 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

CRP No. 1985 of 2026 and CMP.No.8876 of 2026

¶7

Krishnaveni

¶8

W/o. Late. Perumal,

¶9

Rajesh S/o. Late. Perumal,

¶10

Menaka

¶11

D/o. Late. Perumal,

¶12

..Petitioner(s)

¶13

¶14

Padmavathi W/o. late. Mani @ Bagavathi,

¶15

Kalaivani D/o. late. Mani @ Bagavathi,

¶16

Prema W/o. Moorthy,

¶17

Rani W/o. Moorthy,

¶18

Saraswathi W/o. Lingeswaran,

¶19

..Respondent(s)

¶20

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

¶21

India praying to set aside the Order and Decreetal Order dated 22.08.2025 made

¶22

__________ Page1 of 7

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

CRP No. 1985 of 2026

¶25

in IA No.7/2025 in O.S No.39/2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge (FTC), Vellore, Vellore District.

¶26

For Petitioner(s): Ms.D.Kamatchi For Respondent(s): Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy For R5

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Additional District Court (FTC), Vellore, Vellore District in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.39 of 2015.

¶29

In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioners who are

¶30

the plaintiffs in the suit seeking for amendment of the suit prayer to include the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 as null and void, has been dismissed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that erroneously the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the application filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act 1963. She would submit that Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963 will not apply to the case of the petitioners, since as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the document which is sought to be declared as null and void is non est in law. Hence Article 59 does not get attracted. The learned counsel for the

¶32

Page2 of 7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRP No. 1985 of 2026

¶35

petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities in support of her contention that the application filed by the petitioners seeking for amendment of the suit prayer even though filed belatedly is still maintainable and is not barred by limitation.

¶36

a) Unni and Anr. Vs. Kunchi Amma and Ors . reported in 1891 ILR 14MAD26 .

¶37

b) Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Birbal & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) Supreme 69.

¶38

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would place

¶39

reliance on the authorities which were also relied upon by the Trial Court for dismissing the application filed by the petitioners on the ground of limitation.

¶40

Discussion:

¶41

The following are the undisputed facts:

¶42

a) The sale deed dated 22.06.2000 which is sought to be declared as null

¶43

and void by the petitioners through the amendment application is a registered document.

¶44

b) The said sale deed was executed by grand father of the petitioners.

¶45

c) The petitioner has not challenged the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 through a Court of law.

¶46

d) The suit was filed by the petitioners in the year of 2016.

¶47

e) In the written statement filed by the respondents in the suit O.S.No.39 of

¶48

Page3 of 7

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

CRP No. 1985 of 2026

¶51

2015, the defendants have traced their title from the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 which is sought to be declared as null and void by the petitioners through the amendment application.

¶52

f) The petitioners filed an amendment application through I.A.No.7 of 2025 after lapse of more than 9 years from the date of filing of the suit.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted before this Court that Article 59 of the Limitation Act does to apply to the case of the petitioners, since according to the petitioners, the sale deed dated 22.06.2000 is non est in the eye of law. She contended that since it is non est in the eye of law as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, Article 59 of the Limitation Act will not get attracted. In the impugned order, the trial Court has relied upon two authorities which have also been placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents for dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. In both the decisions, it has been made clear that a party who is seeking amendment must be diligent in filing amendment applications, if the need arises.

¶54

Article 58 and Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are relevant for considering this Civil Revision Petition. Article 58 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that to obtain any declaratory relief, the limitation period is three years when the right to sue first accrues. Similarly under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for a rescission of a

¶55

Page4 of 7

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

CRP No. 1985 of 2026

¶58

contract, the limitation period is three years, when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first becomes known to him. In the case on hand, a specific plea was taken by

¶59

the respondents/defendants in the suit filed by the petitioners through their written statement that they trace their title from the alleged disputed document viz., the sale deed dated 22.06.2000. The said written statement was filed in the year 2016 itself. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act also does not provide for any exception to the applicability of Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and this Court is of the considered view placing reliance on the said Section has no bearing for deciding an application for amendment seeking for amending the prayer, which includes the relief of declaration to declare a document as null and void.

¶60

The Trial Court has taken into consideration the legal and factual issues and has rightly come to the conclusion that the application filed by the petitioners seeking for amendment at the fag end of trial is barred by limitation as it is hit by Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the Trial Court for dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no bearing to the facts of the instant case, since in the instant case, it cannot be prima facie established that the disputed document

¶61

Page5 of 7

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

CRP No. 1985 of 2026

¶64

is non est in the eye of law, whereas in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on a prima facie consideration ,those documents were found to be non est in the eye of law, but whereas in the case on hand, it is

¶65

no so.

¶66

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. Since the suit is of the year 2015, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶67

06-07-2026

¶68

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No arr

¶69

¶70

The Additional District Judge (FTC), Vellore, Vellore District.

¶71

__________ Page6 of 7

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73