GANDA SINGH HARNAM SINGH Vs. ZORA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition was heard against the Respondents ex parte.

(2.) A suit instituted on 20th Maghar 2001 for a declaration that the sale of 14 bighas 3 biswas of agricultural land for Rs. 1,000 by Man Singh on 8th Sawan 1994 being alienation of ancestral property without legal necessity should not affect the interest of the collaterals of the vendor, was dismissed by the trial Court. During pendency of the appeal before the District Judge the vendor died on 27th Har 2004. The prayer of the Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint converting the suit into one for possession was accepted by the District Judge on 4th Maghar 2004. The amended plaint was thus presented before the District Judge on 9th Maghar 2004. The Defendants-Respondents then raised the plea of limitation. That objection was allowed by the District Judge, Barnala, on 30th Phagan 2004 and the appeal was dismissed holding the suit as time barred on the date of the presentation of the amended plaint. The Plaintiffs have come to this Court in revision.

(3.) The learned District Judge clearly held that it was no doubt true that the suit for a declaration when filed was within limitation. He again remarked that he realised that the case was very hard for the Plaintiffs-Appellants because their suit was within limitation and the same suit when converted into one for possession was being held time barred. The main reason of the learned District Judge for giving that finding against the Plaintiffs Appellants, the present Petitioners, was that this suit for possession was to be instituted within three years of getting the declaratory decree. He thus suggested that the Plaintiffs should have proceeded with their appeal in the declaratory suit and should have then come to Court with a suit for possession had they succeeded in getting the declaratory decree. Certain authorities were quoted before the learned District Judge to show that amendment of a plaint dated back to the date of the presentation of the original plaint. The correctness of this legal position was admitted by the learned District Judge but he distinguished those cases from this case on the ground that those suits were instituted when the cause of action had accrued to the Plaintiffs when the original plaint was filed. Satyanarainrao V/s. Venkataswami, 1933 AIR(Mad) 153 cited before me also shows that the amendment of a plaint relates back to the date of the institution of the suit with regard to the question of limitation. It was also held in Ammaya Pillai V/s. Narayana Chetti, 1925 AIR(Mad) 487 that the effect of an amendment of the plaint is to date back the suit where no party is added. No party was added in the present case also.