After Plaintiff Left Gat No. 602 Out Of 2013 Deed Challenge, Bombay HC Upholds Refusal To Add It To 1995 Land Suit

The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 85 of 1995 seeking declarations of ownership and possession over Gat Nos. 583 and 612.

The suit was dismissed for default in 2000 and restored in 2009.

In 2013, the plaintiffs amended the plaint to challenge a 2008 sale deed only insofar as it concerned Gat No. 583.

In 2017, Plaintiff No. 1 sought a further amendment, including substitution of Gat No. 602 for Gat No. 612, addition of an area claimed to be owned and possessed, impleadment of two defendants, and challenges to several instruments executed between 2006 and 2008.

The Trial Court rejected the amendment application on 23 April 2018; Plaintiff No. 1 challenged that order by writ petition.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, but the amendment jurisdiction is not unlimited; a proposed amendment may be refused if it is mala fide, causes injustice, or introduces a time-barred claim that would deprive the opposing party of an accrued right.

The Court relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., which recognises those limits.

Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was relevant to the proposed challenges to instruments.

The Court distinguished Shanti Devi (since deceased through LRs) v. Jagan Devi, where a non-executant joint owner sought relief concerning alienation of another’s share; the Court held that its reasoning did not govern a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed ownership of the whole property and sought to have the deeds set aside.

The Court also observed that the suit’s institution before the 2002 CPC amendment did not entitle the plaintiff to amend the plaint at any time.

The Court found that Gat No. 612 was not a mistaken description: the plaint specified boundaries corresponding to Gat No. 612, referred to its conversion from the earlier survey number, and the plaintiffs’ pre-suit application and filed documents also referred to Gat No. 612.

Further, in 2013 the plaintiffs had knowingly limited their challenge to the 2008 sale deed to Gat No. 583, although that deed also concerned Gat No. 602; allowing the later amendment would therefore introduce a different property and affect third-party purchasers who had acquired portions of Gat No. 602.

The proposed challenges to instruments executed in 2006–2008 were brought in 2017 and were held hopelessly time-barred.

Shanti Devi did not assist because the plaintiffs claimed title to the entire property, rather than seeking to protect a joint owner’s share from alienation.

The Court also noted the plaintiff’s failure to join the proposed defendants in the writ petition and the non-bona fide character of the amendment.

It found no ground to interfere with the Trial Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition without costs; any pending interim application was disposed of.