Ganda Singh Harnam Singh and another vs Zora Singh and others

Kartar Singh, J.—This revision petition was heard against the respondents ex parte.

A suit instituted on 20th Maghar 2001 for a declaration that the sale of 14 bighas 3 bighas 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.

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. (Yerramilli) Satyanarainarao and Others Vs. (Guna) Venkataswami and Others, 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. Narayana Chetti, AIR. 1925 Mad. 487: (86 I. C. 187) 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.

The view of the learned District Judge that this suit became time barred because the cause of action for possession accrued after the institution of this suit is not clearly intelligible. The real cause of action that started this litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs was the alienation in question. It was, therefore, that the suit was instituted in the Court. Amendment of the plaint at a later stage on account of certain circumstances happening after the institution of this suit, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered to mean the institution of a new suit, particularly when the parties are the same and the dispute is the same. The amendment was merely to add a further relief which could be granted to the plaintiffs on account of the changed circumstances. The Court had to decide whether or not this suit instituted on 20th Maghar 2001 was within limitation. The learned District Judge has not clearly expressed his view as to how this suit became time barred on account of an amendment which added consequential relief to the declaration prayed for when the original suit for the declaration without the consequential relief was within limitation. He has taken the cause of action in this case merely the death of the alienor on 27th Mar 2004 while in fact only the death of the alienor could not give the plaintiffs any cause of action. The fact giving rise to this litigation was the alienation dated 8th Sawan 1994. That was, therefore, the real cause of action on which this litigation was based.

Cause of action has no relation whatsoever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as to cause of action, or in other words to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour vide observations of Lord Watson in Chand Koer v. Partap Singh, 16 cal. 98: (15 I. A. 166 P.C.) and a Division Bench ruling of the same Court Tarit Bhusan Rai and Another Vs. Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila Thakur by Krishna Chandra Chandra and Others, . Cause of action means the whole bundle of material facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to succeed in the suit. In a restricted sense, the words "cause of action" mean the circumstances forming the infringement of the right or the immediate occasion for the action, and, in a wider sense, those words mean the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit including not only the infraction of the right but the infraction coupled with the right itself. This expression means every fact which might be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. The learned District Judge was, therefore, wrong when he considered that death of the alienor alone was the cause of action for the plaintiffs in this case.

The finding of the learned District Judge that this suit was time-barred is, therefore, erroneous and cannot be maintained. It is hereby set aside.

The appeal was decided by the learned District Judge merely on the point of limitation after receiving the amended plaint. Further proceedings have, therefore, to be taken. This revision petition is accepted. The decree of the District Judge, Barnala, for further necessary action in accordance with law. (Sic) The costs in this petition shall be the costs in the suit. The counsel for the plaintiffs petitioners is directed to appear in that Court on 17th sawan 2006.