AMARNATH JAIN Vs. K VIJAYA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S. No. 871 of 2001 on the file of the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed this revision assailing the order dated 02-04-2004 passed in I.A. No. 374 of 2004. The respondents are plaintiffs in that suit.

(2.) The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 18-07-1992. The respondents contended that the first petitioner executed the agreement of sale in favour of their brother late Eswar Lal. According to them, the suit schedule property was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 3,51,000/- and out of it, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as advance on 18-07-1992 when the agreement of sale was executed. After referring to the correspondence that ensued between their deceased brother and the petitioners, the respondents expressed their readiness and willingness to fulfill their part of contract and prayed for relief of specific performance.

(3.) The respondents filed I.A. No. 374 of 2004 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint. According to them, when they were cleaning the house on 14-03-2004 on the eve of Ugadi festival, they found a memorandum of understanding dated 11-07-1995 entered into between their deceased brother and the petitioners and that there are several recitals in it which have a direct bearing on the subject matter of the suit. The memorandum of understanding is said to be to the effect, that a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid, and the brother of the respondents was permitted to continue in possession of the premises without payment of rent. Certain conditions contained in the agreement of sale dated 18-07-1992 are also said to have been dealt with in the memorandum of understanding. On the basis of the same, they intended to incorporate para 7(a) in the plaint. No amendment was sought to the prayer or other parts of the suit. The petitioners resisted the same alleging that the amendment would have the effect of inclusion of certain claims which are untenable in law and barred by limitation. Through the order under revision, the trial Court allowed the I.A.