l
{N THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10″” DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTiCE ANAND _
REGULAR SECOND APPEAENQ.1_–3’6’i”Dff,2(TT)fi’_ f
BETWEEN:
S1’i.Vin0d Redciyfl A
Son of Late K.V.Nurayuna Reddy’,a._ D’ _
Aged about 40 years, _
Residing at Kithiganur”.Zi’I’1«-ageg 3. V ~
Bidarahaiii Hobii, A A
Bangalore S0uthA71_”z1iuk, _ ‘
B3nga10re–56{_’), e;r3p;;- T’ APPELLANT
(By ‘:1–;r1.:_(:i”S:’1;§.i\/I.D_Anurz1(iha, Advocates)
AND:
– 1. 311;. I<,_.M..K'1'Visvi:-:13Reddy,
Sufi gf'Late N[UF}ES1'lLilT1£1pp£l,
T _ Ageci "about 72 years.
Rfi3’§_i€1__iI’kg’L1D[ Ki-thiganur Viliatge.
BVi€iara_i’ié1lii H()bli,
B:1ngé1l01’e South Taiuk,
” Ba:3ng211o:’e-560 036.
A’ Sri.K.N.Ramucha:ndra Redcly.
Son of Late K.\/’.Na.rayana Reddy,
Aged 47 years.
¥\J
Residing at Kithiganur Village,
Bidarahalii Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangmon>560036. .H Raspcmeaewrssk.
(By Shri.H.R.Ar1anthaki’ishna Murthy,
No.1, . .4 _ ._
Southem Law Associates for Resp()r1,dei1t’N¢:;.2).. ”
.5}: ::{:’>E§ >1: >[<
This Regular Seeond Apep.c::ai'i".i_s*fjled L1tT(–ft.3_tf Seeti<)1i.i()(') of
Code of Civii Procedu:"'__e..fxl908 aige"1ii:1st.,ti"ie fudgment and decree
dated: 23.1.2007 ptkssfld"i11"R'A.§;5§t3.17.022003 on the file of the
Presiding Officer, Fast 'Af_1';1ek._C€)u:ft-I*I;~.VBa§ga'Eore Rural District,
Barigaiore, a11owirigthe;_'appea1 and«..settii1g':aside the judgment and
txmmedmatfloeemngmgaim£IsNo2fiymm4onmefimtfi
the Additi()'rié1i"_E..{'€'i'*2.§l 3-ué.ge~.(_J"t;ii'i'or Divisicin), Bangaitire Rural
District, Ba1*iga'i»oi:{e an<*I.'e€.c.",=f «.
-‘for hearing this day, the Court
dehveredthe fiut9wing:»,”~ v
Rj§DGMENT
in . f;ft:3”;t1″(Ri’t~§i’1f3 for the appeiiant and the Counsei for the
“‘ 1fe’sipoiidefnt.s. ‘ V .
“fhe appeal having been acimitted, the following
i’ sL2i)s_t:111t’Ea1i questioiis of Eaw were frarned:
S
3
i. Whether the appellate c.ourt was justified in revestsing the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court without
considering the aspect of limitation’?
Whether in the facts and cilctanstanees§_h’l”t.lj’§.,,,’9ll:s,e”the
av
appellate court was justified En re\2’e1’si:1;g’v the j’L1Vdgvsmeh.F_
and decree passed by the”:.t:’i:i_llc’OLIft~.basedll(eh’~~.l§Xlhlbit l
P. 1?”
3. The facts as la-:f_eip”1’ele;__\I:«;11:ttw fOr_’the’~tlbisp()sal of this appeal
are as follows: .
_1fefei’red .teWby their rank before the trial
court for the sal<e_Oiledttvehletiee.
_ The éippellaht \A2vasl”‘t’he second defendant in the suit. The
first{:’es’pon<;lent wlaslltlie plaintiff. The plaintiff" claimed that he
E11e'~a.bs<ji.uVtle owner in possession and enjoyment of the
pt'dpe.:"t;_;'l11.l'{hata No.26, House List n0.40 0fl(ithiganu1' Village,
H Bidarah'alli Hobli, Bangalore South Taiak. it was eiear that the
lprlijperty was his ancestral property and after the death of his
5
father, the. plaintiff and his brother has succeeded to the _~;ame and
the khata of the property stood in his name. It was his: i’t’urthpe’:<.4case
that the suit property was allotted to him under a"fainilyt:Settienfteint.._
dated 25.4.1993 and that he was i.r'iieXc'lt!:5i%xe p{)§:$.§L'.S'_f'}l(i)iFi'it)lLT{hEi._
same and that the plaintiff reeicles the':S.;:.it"propertyiand
since there is no toilet fmsility to put
up a bath room and commenced
digging foundation to on 18.6.1994.
The Clefend_a4nt.is otltime and therefore, the
plaintiff_was”‘coits;E:r;i_ine:iitqifile a..st;it5fc)r permanent injunction.
Th’e_4’tlCftei1gié1:–itsu’e.!_1.tE1’ed appearance and the second
defe:j1Li’ant liereénideiiiiefi that the plaintifi’ had any title to the suit
:ip::Qpert)} .i&in_”tl.1._e written statement. The plaiiitiff had after a
iieons_i.derah_i_e__delay ofeight years from such denial of title, filed an
‘V app_l4icat’i’oVnineeking amendment of the pleadings. to include the
..ff.rel’ietI’t)f’ declaration of his title to the property. This application
i v§;h_i<;h was filed during the pendency of the suit was allowed and
5
3
the suit was converted into one for declaration ol’ title. and for
permanent injunction. The trial court in its judgment proceeded to
hold that the plaintiff disentitled himself to claim the declaration
of title on account of the amendineiit having beenmstitig-Efit”afte«i’_ a
lapse of eight years from the date of denia_i”of-.h’iisblt’i.tle_b36_lthisl’
defendant in the pleadings. This li’avin”g.h’een._e’hal’lenged hetiire if
the first appellate court. the fi:’.s.t”‘appell’ate oo_ui’t, aside the
finding of the trial coart- on tlieit-b–arl’ot’l’i~m_itationvandiiiias held that
the amendment dated baeletol suit and hence the
lirnitation and “set aside the finding of the Trial
Court wliiiiel vl’ui~th_ei*._liolding that since the application for
ztifjeiidianestt has heevn….al’lc)w’ecl uiiconditionaily. it may be prestimed
that’t.|ie-_i’el.ieli_dated back to the date of suit. it is this which is
to. ged.
” The pi’imai”y contention of the counsel for the appellant
is..that the suit was for bare injunction. Upon denial of the title. of
5
6
the plaintil’t’, the cause of action, if any, iiisofi.-ti’ seeking
declaration of title arose to the plaintiff. The plai:htivti’_f’L–«.V1fia.ying
eho:.~;en to file an application after 2} delay of eigtlit ,yettit:;iiiw*<iut1ld
clearly be l"'ai’i”;§et, l%3i would
submit that the SUbStaFEtliai”:£§uE3E.ttilti§l1i.i have to
be answered in favoui’ mitheiii of the first
appellate to the date of suit
was relationwbaek would not
apply all amendments that are permitted
and especiti”itl..yii;1V ttt:a,s”e_ which involves the bar of limitation and
‘by \;j»i1*i2t1e:gL1eli a’me.r:1.t:h’neiit being allowed. it cannot be said that
the law_of’liih’ittati’n
wot: id stand ieffaeed.
A’ the other hand. the counsel for the iespendent would
“t”SLli;tIT1l[ that the 1’eastming of the first appellate court was in
3
8
brought beyond the period of limitation, but is eiitertained by the
court and is not rejected at the outset on the bar oflE1nitat»i_io-niand it
is by the judgment and decree, that the questi()i<:..i:ol" vliirnitaitioh' is
answered agtiiitst the plaintift's. Siii1ilarly.4 it is the1iefo_i'evineorrect 7
to contend that by virtue of the _applicav€.ion_for 'dm'§'A.'l}ii(1"I"t'=.i'f3l1l3~4llitvlltrg
been allowed on the doctrine of»rel3.tion–bacl{;efhezamendment
would have to be consti'u_ed~._as being ieffeeiti*.the1″-ha1iIti._it’ warsa._sui1″‘t’t>i’ bare injurtction. The defendant
having tlisp(>ssewssed ‘i’thelplaintif’t’ during the pendency of the suit..
il:1nViappli’t:atibny_. was filed seeking to include the relief of
“(;’ec’li5;1_i’2;1ti’t.)n’of title’. and recovery of ptissessitm The question that
_ was i”deei’ded”by the Supreme Court was that such an amendment
:”>CULi’l(§l_bC allowed if the plaintiff therein was entitled to file an
‘ indepehde.iit suit for recox–tery of ;)os.~;e.ssion within the period of
Z
IE)
Sic/dc:fiitgm-m-Ha and cIi”I()I/’28!’ 1’18’. Mcmtifm 5lmzu}j_
{2()()1)’8 SCC SM}.
7. In this view. it czumot be said that the’ d.i(j)c:tt1m:T’r:«t–.T_n’§ oflaw._av2’é’~answet’ed in favour of
the :;1ppel1ant_ The j’udgAt”:ie.mf()t”*the ‘fi 1’_staItptjeilate court is set
aside.
The. ;.1ppé2:Erisf’2t:E;:It)_w’eti.V.::v’
% % t t Scl/’:_
hv~_
