Sister-in-Law Property Dispute: Karnataka HC Upholds Refusal To Recast Possession Suit As Permanent-Injunction Claim On A Different Cause Of Action

The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 447/2012 seeking a mandatory injunction requiring defendant No. 1, her sister-in-law, to vacate and deliver possession of the suit property.

The plaintiff claimed that the property had been gifted to her by defendant No. 2, who had permitted defendant No. 1 to occupy it as a licensee.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in 2015, and the plaintiff obtained possession in execution; however, the Appellate Court later set aside the decree and remanded the suit for fresh consideration.

After remand, the plaintiff sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by substituting a claim for permanent injunction restraining interference with the property.

The Trial Court rejected the application, finding that the proposed relief rested on a distinct cause of action and would change the nature of the suit.

The plaintiff challenged that order in this writ petition.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings and permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, subject to the applicable procedural requirements.

The court also relied on Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, (2022) 8 SCC 145, for the principle that an amendment may be refused where it changes the nature of the suit.

The petition was considered under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court noted that possession had been obtained under the original decree, but that decree was subsequently set aside on appeal; therefore, the execution outcome alone did not establish that nothing remained to be considered in the suit.

The proposed permanent-injunction relief, however, was founded on alleged interference distinct from the cause of action for the original mandatory-injunction claim and would require consideration of the circumstances giving rise to that interference.

Having regard to the nature of the original and proposed reliefs and the Trial Court’s reasons, the High Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the rejection of the amendment application.

No order was made as to costs.