Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Of Sons’ Bid To Amend Suit To Challenge Father’s 1974 Land Sale, As They Failed To Explain Due Diligence

In brief

The question

Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the amendment application when the petitioners claimed that the 1974 sale deed had not been within their knowledge despite due diligence.

The court held

The High Court held that the Trial Court had committed no error or infirmity in rejecting the amendment application.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition and did not decide the limitation issue.

01Facts

The petitioners brought a suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the suit properties and a permanent injunction.

The defendants relied on a registered sale deed dated 27 December 1974, supported by an encumbrance certificate, and contended that the deed had been executed by the plaintiffs’ father.

¶ 2, 4, 6

The petitioners applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to seek declarations that the 1974 sale deed and subsequent sale deeds were not binding on them.

¶ 5, 7

They said the transaction had been unknown to them and relied on an encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.10, which they claimed did not disclose the deed.

¶ 5, 7

The Trial Court rejected the application. The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the amendment application when the petitioners claimed that the 1974 sale deed had not been within their knowledge despite due diligence.

¶ 2.1, 6–9

ii.Whether the question of limitation concerning the proposed declaratory relief should be left open for consideration at trial.

¶ 2.2

03Law Applied

Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, amendments necessary for a comprehensive and complete adjudication should be considered liberally; however, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that, despite due diligence, the facts sought to be introduced could not have been pleaded earlier for want of knowledge.

¶ 8

Article 227 provides the basis for the High Court’s supervisory review of the Trial Court’s order.

¶ 1

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ claim of lack of knowledge rested on Ex.P.10, which they said did not disclose the 1974 sale deed. The Court found that this basis was contradicted by Ex.D.3, an encumbrance certificate that reflected the deed and was corroborated by production of the registered instrument.

¶ 6–9

The supporting affidavit also failed to explain what due diligence had been undertaken or why the deed could not have been pleaded earlier.

¶ 7

Because the required basis for allowing the amendment was not established, the Court considered the limitation question academic.

¶ 10