G. Nagamma & Ors. Vs. Siromanamma & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 11619 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1995 of the Andhra Pra-desh High Court in C.R.P. No. 673 of 1991)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1995 of the Andhra Pra-desh High Court in C.R.P. No. 673 of 1991)
Petitioner: G. Nagamma & Ors.
Respondent: Siromanamma & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 11619 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1995 of the Andhra Pra-desh High Court in C.R.P. No. 673 of 1991)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1995 of the Andhra Pra-desh High Court in C.R.P. No. 673 of 1991)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 27, 1995
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment – Original suit for specific perfor-mance – Amendment sought to plead alternative relief of redemp-tion of mortgage on basis of document of re-conveyance – Held that a plaintiff can take even inconsistent pleas. Here relief was in the alternative. Hence, amendment allowed.(para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants laid the suit for specific performance of the agreement of re-conveyance dated 30.8.1967. Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed seek-ing amendment of the plaint by incorporating averments in para-graph 3 thereof. Thus the appellants pleaded that the transac-tions of execution of sale deed and obtaining a document for re-conveyance were single transactions, viz., mortgage by condition-al sale. In paragraph 9, they wanted alternative relief to redeem the mortgage. At the end of the prayer, the plaintiff sought alternatively to grant a decree for redemption of mortgage. This application was rejected by the trial court. On revision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the same holding that in the original plaint the suit was for specific performance and the re-conveyance was not incorporated in the sale deed and that, therefore, the amendment was not warranted. Amendment would change the nature of the suit as well as cause of action.
3. We called upon the appellant to produce original agreement of re-conveyance. We have seen the original document which con-tains the recitals in support of the contention raised by the appellants. It is settled law that the plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas. In this case, they are seeking alternative reliefs. The application was for amendment of the plaint whereby neither cause of action could change nor the relief could be materially affected. We allow the same.
4. The appellants shall file amended plaint. If would be open to the respondents to raise all the defences by filing additional written statement. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within eight months from the date of the receipt of this order.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants laid the suit for specific performance of the agreement of re-conveyance dated 30.8.1967. Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed seek-ing amendment of the plaint by incorporating averments in para-graph 3 thereof. Thus the appellants pleaded that the transac-tions of execution of sale deed and obtaining a document for re-conveyance were single transactions, viz., mortgage by condition-al sale. In paragraph 9, they wanted alternative relief to redeem the mortgage. At the end of the prayer, the plaintiff sought alternatively to grant a decree for redemption of mortgage. This application was rejected by the trial court. On revision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the same holding that in the original plaint the suit was for specific performance and the re-conveyance was not incorporated in the sale deed and that, therefore, the amendment was not warranted. Amendment would change the nature of the suit as well as cause of action.
3. We called upon the appellant to produce original agreement of re-conveyance. We have seen the original document which con-tains the recitals in support of the contention raised by the appellants. It is settled law that the plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas. In this case, they are seeking alternative reliefs. The application was for amendment of the plaint whereby neither cause of action could change nor the relief could be materially affected. We allow the same.
4. The appellants shall file amended plaint. If would be open to the respondents to raise all the defences by filing additional written statement. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within eight months from the date of the receipt of this order.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
