G. NAGAMMA AND ANR.versusSIROMENAMMA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 793
- Decided
- 27 November 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Amendment of the plaint to include alternative relief is permissible as it does not change the cause of action or materially affect the relief.
Summary
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for reconveyance and later applied under Order 16 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint to claim that the sale deed and reconveyance were a single transaction (mortgage by conditional sale) and to seek alternative relief of redemption of the mortgage. The trial court rejected the amendment, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirmed that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and its cause of action. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may plead even inconsistent pleas and that the proposed amendment did not alter the cause of action nor materially affect the relief sought. Consequently, the amendment was allowed, the plaintiffs were directed to file an amended plaint, and the respondents could raise defenses in a revised written statement. The appeal was allowed and the trial court was instructed to dispose of the suit within eight months.
Issues considered
- Whether amendment of the plaint to include alternative relief of redemption of mortgage under Order 16 Rule 17 CPC is permissible.
- Whether such amendment would change the nature of the suit or the cause of action.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 16 Rule 17
Subjects
Judgment
G. NAGAMMA AND ANR. A
v.
SIROMENAMMA AND ANR.
NOVEMBER 27, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) B
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order lrr-Rule 17.
Agreement for reconveyance-Suit for specific peifomiance-Amend-
ment of plaint seeking altemative reliefs-Held pennissible. C
In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for reconveyance,
the appellants filed an application seeking amendment of plaint. They
pleaded that the transactions of execution of sale deed and obtaining a
document for reconveyance were single transactions viz. mortgage by
conditional sale. They also wanted alternative relief for redemption of D
mortgage. The amendment application was rejected by the Trial Court.
The High Court also held that amendment was not permissible as it would
change the nature of suit as well as the cause of action.
Allowing the plaintiffs' appeal, this Court
E
HELD : It is settled law that the plaintiff is entitled to plead even
inconsistent pleas. In this case, plaintiffs are seeking alternative reliefs.
The application was for amendment of the plaint whereby neither cause of
action could change nor the relief could be materially affected. The same
is allowed. The appellants shall file amended plaint and it would be open F
to the respondents to raise all the defences by filing additional written
statement. [702-E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11619 of
1995.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.95 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in C.R.P. No. 673 of 1991.
A. Rama Subbiah and Amlan Ghosh for the Appellants.
D. Ramakrishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy and S.K. Mehta for the H
701
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
B The appellants laid the suit for specific performance of the agree-
ment of reconveyance dated 30th August, 1967. Application under Order
16 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed seeking amendment
of the plaint by incorporating averments in para 3 thereof. Thus the
appellants pleaded that the transactions of execution of sale deed and
obtaining a document for reconveyance were single transactions, viz.,
C mortgage by conditional sale. In paragraph 9, they wanted alternative relief
to redeem the mortgage. At the end of the prayer, the plaintiff sought
alternatively to grant a decree for redemption of mortgage. This applica-
tion was rejected by the Trial Court. On revision, the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh confirmed the same holding that in the original plaint the
D suit was for specific performance and the reconveyance was not incor-
porated in the sale deed and that, therefore, the amendment was not
warranted. Amendment would change the nature of the suit as well as
cause of action.
We called upon the appellant to produce original agreement of
E reconveyance. We have S!!en the original document which contains the
recitals in support of the contention raised by the appellants. It is settled
law that the plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas. In this
case, they are seeking alternative reliefs. The application was for amend-
ment of the plaint whereby neither cause of action could change nor the
relief could be materially affected. We allow the same.
F
The appellants shall file amended plaint. It would be open to the
respondents to raise all the defences by filing additional written statement.
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within eight months from
the date of the receipt of this order.
G
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.