Madras HC Sets Aside Permission For Former Minors To Seek Cancellation Of 2010 Sale Deed, As Limitation Was Not Examined

The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 56 of 2016 seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 11 August 2010 was null and void and not binding on them, alleging that they were minors when it was executed

In their 2016 written statement, the defendants contended that, as parties to the deed, the plaintiffs should have sought its cancellation and valued the relief under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act

In 2023, the plaintiffs applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to seek cancellation and revise the valuation and court fee

The trial court allowed the application, and the petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution

Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, a proposed amendment must be assessed for whether the relief it introduces is within the period of limitation; an amendment seeking relief beyond limitation cannot be allowed

The Court referred to Asian Hotels (North) Limited v. Alok Kumar Lodha, (2022) 8 SCC 145, as authority relevant to that principle

The plaintiffs’ original declaratory relief was valued under Section 25(d), while the proposed cancellation relief was to be valued under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act

The revision was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution

The plaintiffs had been put on notice by the 2016 written statement that the defendants disputed the form of relief and asserted that cancellation, rather than declaration, was required.

The amendment application was not filed until 2023 and also sought a different valuation and court fee

The trial court allowed the amendment solely on the ground that the defendants would suffer no prejudice, without considering whether the cancellation relief was within limitation

Because limitation was a necessary consideration under the applicable amendment principle, the High Court held that the trial court’s failure to address it rendered the order perverse and justified supervisory intervention

It directed the Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode, to dispose of O.S. No. 56 of 2016 within three months of receiving the order; the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs