D SUBBA RAO Vs. P V PRABHAKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by a common order. The lower court also disposed of the matter by a common order.

(2.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They laid the suits O.S. 18/79 and O.S. No. 155/80 for recovery of the earnest money paid to the respondent under an agreement of sale dated 5-8-75 whereunder the respondent agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of the contract. One of the conditions agreed to between the parties was that the balance consideration shall be paid on or before 31-1-76 and the sales deed ought to be got executed. The petitioners filed the suits for the refund of the earnest money and the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 in each case and other witnesses also were examined. Their evidence was closed. Thereafter the respondent came into the box and examined himself as D.W.I on 25-8-1985. During the examination-in-chief he stated that the land Reforms Tribunal. Krishna in its proceedings bearing C.C. No. 1329/75 dated 26-3-1984 declared him to be within the ceiling limit under the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural land Act 1 of 1973. He also produced the document which was marked as Ex. B-2. The petitioners filed on the same day two I.As., the subject matter of the revision seeking amendment of the plaint to introduce relief for specific performing. The respondent resisted the applications on the ground that the amendment if allowed would introduce a new cause of action which is not the subiect matter of the plaint ; that the claims are barred by limitation and that the respondent would be deprived of the valuable right of pleading the bar of limitation. Those two pleas found favour with the court below. Accordingly, the court below dismissed the applications. Thus these revisions.

(3.) Sri M. Ramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were kept in dark with regard to the declaration made by the Land Reforms Tribunal declaring the respondent to be within the ceiling limit, at the time when the suits were laid. The respondent was declared to be a surplus holder having 1, 1730 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area ; as a result the petitioners could not seek specific performance of the agreement. So the only remedy available to the petitioners was to seek for a decree for refund of the earnest money paid under the contract. He submitted that by operation of the Act 1/73 the agreement became unenforceable but by declaration of the Tribunal that the respondent is within the ceiling limit, the agreement became enforceable. The petitioners became aware of this fact for. the first time on 25-8-1986, when Ex. B-2 was filed and the respondent as D.W. 1 stated these facts in his evidence on the same day, the petitioners filed the applications for amendment of the plaint without any delay and there are bonafides on the part of the petitioner?. Under those circumstances though there is a change in the cause of action, the petitioners are entitled to seek the indulgence of the court for the amendment of the plaint.