KANNAN Vs. CHIRUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think that the court below erred in disallowing the amendment sought by the plaintiffs - petitioners. The suit as it stands is for a declaration of title and for an injunction restraining the defendants, who live in a house on the property, from committing waste thereon. The amendment sought is only in respect of the relief, the plaintiffs asking for a decree for possession on the averment that, subsequent to the suit, the defendants have been preventing them from entering on the property thus virtually depriving them of possession. I fail to see how it can be said, as the court below has done, that this will introduce a totally new and different case and if allowed will convert the suit into another of a different and inconsistent character. The title agitated is the same; only a new relief necessitated by subsequent events and essential for an effective adjudication is sought; and the suit remains substantially the same. The facts in ILR 48 Cal. 832 (P. C.) relied upon by the lower court are altogether different; and those in AIR 1942 Sind 4, AIR 1952 Punjab 221 and 21 T.L.T. 338 readily distinguishable. Whether the last mentioned three cases were correctly decided may itself be open to question but it is not necessary to go into that. The decision in AIR 1959 Andhra 9 contains an exhaustive review of the case law on the point and I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion therein that, when by reason of subsequent events the original relief claimed has become inappropriate or when it is necessary to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties, it is incumbent on the court to take note of these subsequent events and mould its relief accordingly, leave to amend being granted, if necessary for the purpose, under O. VI, R.17, C. P. C.

(2.) I allow the petition with costs, and grant the plaintiffs application for amendment of their plaint.