NINGAWWA Vs. SHARANABASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by Defendant No. 1, challenging the order dtd. 30/9/2023, passed by the learned Judge on I.A. No. 27. The learned Judge allowed the application, thereby permitting the plaintiff to seek the relief of a declaration that he is the adopted son of Pampanna and Defendant No. 1. The petitioner contested this application on the grounds that it is hopelessly barred by time, and therefore, the plaintiff should not be allowed to seek the declaration of his status as an adopted son through an amendment.

(2.) Plaintiff's Initial Suit and Contest: Respondent No. 1, the plaintiff, initially instituted a bare suit for injunction in O.S. No. 42/2010. The present petitioner filed a written statement, vehemently denying the plaintiff's claim of being the adopted son of the late Pampanna. The petitioner asserted that Pampanna never adopted the plaintiff and that the necessary ceremonies, including the formal giving and taking, were never performed. The adoption claim was seriously disputed by Defendant No. 1 in the written statement filed on 13/2/2012. Despite this, the plaintiff filed an amendment application when the matter was set down for the defendants' arguments. Although the learned Judge acknowledged that this amendment application was sought after 13 years, the application was allowed on the grounds that the amendment would not relate back to the filing of the suit.

(3.) This court needs to examine whether the learned Judge could have entertained the proposed amendment when the matter was set down for arguments. Initially, the suit was solely for a bare injunction. The plaintiff now seeks to amend the suit to include a declaration that he is the adopted son of Pampanna. This proposed amendment significantly alters the character of the suit. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559, held that proposed amendments should be encouraged to resolve all contentious issues in one suit rather than forcing the plaintiff to file an independent suit. However, considering the facts of this case, this court views that the order under challenge suffers from perversity and material irregularity. The plaintiff's status as an adopted son was disputed in 2012, and he had ample opportunity to either seek an amendment or file an independent suit for such a declaration. Filing the amendment application at this late stage, after leading evidence and cross-examining the defendants, appears to be an afterthought. Despite recognizing that the amendment is barred by limitation, the learned Judge allowed the application by noting that it would not relate back to the suit's original filing date.