Golla Lakshmiah Naidu vs Golla Krishnaswami Naidu and Another

Pakenham Walsh, J.—The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they are Golla Mirasiholders of the Sri Kothandaramaswami Temple and that

by a registered agreement, dated August 22, 19G6, between them and the defendant they were entitled to take yearly turns in holding office. They

also sued to recover possession of the key of the temple and to fill this office for the year beginning with July 1, 1931.

The suit was filed in November 1931 and did not come up for hearing till March 1933, apparently for no fault of the plaintiffs. By that time the

year for which they were entitled to possession had elapsed. The defendant, urged that they must be, therefore, non-suited as a mere prayer for

declaration without possession could not be granted. The plaintiffs asked to amend their plaint by claiming the relief they were entitled to, viz., to

get possession during alternate years. This amendment was allowed by the Court and against the order allowing it the present revision petition is

filed.

The argument of the petitioner is that the amendment enlarges the scope of the suit. It may be noted here that it was contended for the plaintiffs

even at the time of the amendment that the suit was maintainable even as it stood without amendment; and the lower Court wisely, I think, said it

was unnecessary to decide this point. The plaint as it was orginally framed runs:

The plaintiffs, therefore, pray for a declaration that they are the Golla Mirasiholders of Sri Kothandnramaswami Temple, that in pursuance of the

agreement dated ""August 22, 1906, they are entitled to enjoy the said office according to turns from July 1, 1931, to June 30, 1932, and that after

establishing their right in a Court of Law they are entitled to have the defendant removed from the Udigam Mirasi office and to get possession of

the keys through the process of the Court.

It will be observed that there is a direct prayer for a declaration that they are entitled to enjoy the said office according to turns from July 1,

1931, to June 30, 1931. No doubt it is not stated that the turns are alternate yearly ones but that is the reasonable inference and the whole claim is

based on a registered agreement which is filed. It is difficult, therefore, to say positively that a decree given in accordance with this request would

not enable them to recover possession of the property in alternate years. In any case it appears to me to be a suit where the amendment ought to

be allowed. It has been asked for before the trial arid it is impossible to see how the defendant would be prejudiced by it. The only case quoted by

the other side in AIR 1927 18 (Privy Council) . There the whole case was sought to be altered at the time of the argument in the Privy Council,

Order VI, Rule 17, is considerably wider than the corresponding section of the old code and the Court is given very wide power or discretion to

allow amendments especially to avoid multiplicity of suits. The only result of refusing the amendment would be to drive the plaintiffs to a fresh suit,

while the title remains the same. In Charan Das v. Amir Khan 57 Ind. Cas. 606 : 48 C. 110 : 39 M.L.J. 195 : 28 M.L.T. 149 : 2 U.P.L.R (P C.)

124 : 18 A.L.J. 1095 : 22 Bom. L.R. 1370 : 47 I.A. 255 : 13 L.W. 49 : 25 C.W.N. 289 : 3 P.W.R. 1921 (P.O.), an amendment for the first time

granted in Second Appeal was not interfered with by the Lordships of the Privy Council. I do not see sufficient reason to interfere with the

discretion exercised by the lower Court in allowing this amendment. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. Costs to abide the result of the

suit.