Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Amendment of Plaint Not Barred by Limitation: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has granted relief in a longstanding land dispute case, ruling that the amendment of the plaint in the matter was not barred by limitation. The case, Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 2010, involved a dispute over the ownership and possession of a piece of immovable property.

The appellant, Sri. K.M. Krishna Reddy, had filed a suit for a perpetual injunction in relation to the property, claiming exclusive possession based on a family settlement executed in 1993. The respondents, Sri. Vinod Reddy and another, contested the suit, asserting that they had perfected their title to the property through adverse possession.

The crucial issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant's amendment of the plaint, which included a prayer for a declaration of ownership and possession, was barred by limitation. The High Court had held that the amendment was time-barred, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka, disagreed with the High Court's decision. The Court observed that the amendment was not barred by limitation, as there was no dispute about the appellant's title to the property. The respondents had admitted the appellant's father's ownership of the property, and the suit was founded on title.

The Court clarified that in a suit for a perpetual injunction based on title, there was no need for the plaintiff to claim a declaration of ownership unless there was a dispute that clouded the plaintiff's title. In this case, no such cloud existed, and the only issues were possession and adverse possession.

The Supreme Court's judgment partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision. It remanded the case to the High Court with directions to frame additional substantial questions of law and prioritize the disposal of the Regular Second Appeal No. 1361 of 2007.

The Court concluded by highlighting the need for timely resolution of the case, given its long pendency, and scheduled a hearing in the Karnataka High Court on October 30, 2023.

This judgment serves as a significant legal precedent in cases involving property disputes and the amendment of plaints, providing clarity on the issue of limitation in such matters.

Date of Decision: October 06, 2023

SRI. K.M. KRISHNA REDDY vs SRI. VINOD REDDY & ANR.

Similar News