High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-08-23Application allowed; amendment permitted; impug...

Sankaran Nair Varavara Veedu & Chippukutty Nair Varavara Veedu v. Kumaran Nair Varavara Veedu, Narayanan Nair Varavara Veedu, Ramankuty Nair Varavara Veedu (deceased) & others including Gopalan Kutty Nair Varavara Veedu, Pushpalatha Varavara Veedu, Raveendran Varavara Veedu, RadhaKrishnan Varavara Veedu, Premalatha Varavara Veedu, Eresankutty Varavara Veedu, Girija Devi Varavara House, Sarala Devi W/o Gangadharane etc.

Case / Petition Number:OP(C).No. 1791 of 2015 (O)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2017-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: The amendment application I.A.1639/2015 is allowed; the impugned order dismissing it is set aside. The respondents are given liberty to file additional or amended written statements, as they prefer. The court held that the amendment would not alter the basic relief sought and would aid in determining the real issue of signature authenticity, aligning with the objectives of Order VI Rule 17.
Final Disposition: Application allowed; amendment permitted; impugned order set aside; the suit to proceed with amended pleadings; opportunity to file/ amend written statements

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sankaran Nair Varavara Veedu
Chippukutty Nair Varavara Veedu

Respondents

Kumaran Nair Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Narayanan Nair Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Ramankuty Nair Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701 (deceased)
Gopalan Kutty Nair Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Pushpalatha Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Raveendran Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Radhakrishnan Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Premalatha Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Eresankutty Varavara Veedu, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Girija Devi Varavara House, Kannadi, Palakkad-678701
Sarala Devi W/o Gangadharan, Saranganga, Vallikode, Palakkad-678594

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. U. Balagangadhar an

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri. Rajesh SivaramanKutty

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No.34/2012 before the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Palakkad, sought a declaration that two gift deeds executed by their mother, Kannu Amma, in favor of the respondents were null and void, alleging the signatures may have been procured by fraud or coercion. They moved I.A.1639/2015 to amend the plaint to plead that the signatures did not belong to Kannu Amma. The defendants opposed arguing that the amendment would alter the suit’s character. The trial court dismissed the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, concluding it would cause prejudice and change the suit’s nature. The Kerala High Court, applying Chapter VI Rule 17 of the CPC, ruled that amendments to clarify the facts and address the real dispute should be allowed if they do not prejudice the other side. It invoked Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Pillai v. Pillai to frame the scope of amendment. The Court held that the amended pleadings would not alter the relief sought (annulling the gift deeds) and would simply address how the signatures were obtained. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and I.A.1639/2015 was allowed, with liberty to file or amend written statements by the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Chapter VI Rule 17 of the CPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others (AIR 1957 SC 363) – amendments under Order VI Rule 17 should be allowed if they satisfy the conditions: (a) no injustice to the other side; (b) necessary for determining the real question in controversy.
Pillai v. P. Pillai and Another (AIR 2000 SC 614) – amendment is not a matter of right; liberal approach should be the general rule, especially where the other side can be compensated with costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that amending the plaint to plead that the signatures did not belong to Kannu Amma would not alter the core relief sought—voiding the gift deeds. They argued Amendment under Order VI Rule 17, Chapter VI CPC, is permissible if it aids in pinpointing the real dispute and does not prejudice the other side. They claimed the new pleas concern the donor's signatures, not the basic declaratory relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that allowing the amendment would change the suit’s character and prejudice them by introducing a new cause of action. They urged that the amendment should be denied to preserve the original scope of the suit.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others	AIR (1957) SC 363	Positive	Used as the guiding principle that amendments should be allowed if they satisfy the conditions of not causing injustice and aiding in determining the real question.
Pillai v. P. Pillai and Another	AIR 2000 SC 614	Positive	Cited to acknowledge that while amendment is not a right, liberal allowances are permissible where equitable, such as when costs can compensate the opposing party.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sankaran Nair Varavara Veedu & Chippukutty Nair Varavara Veedu v. Kumaran Nair Varavara Veedu, Narayanan Nair Varavara Veedu, Ramankuty Nair Varavara Veedu (deceased) & others including Gopalan Kutty Nair Varavara Veedu, Pushpalatha Varavara Veedu, Raveendran Varavara Veedu, RadhaKrishnan Varavara Veedu, Premalatha Varavara Veedu, Eresankutty Varavara Veedu, Girija Devi Varavara House, Sarala Devi W/o Gangadharane etc. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017/1ST BHADRA, 1939** **OP(C).No. 1791 of 2015 (O) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** ## **-------------** **1. SANKARAN NAIR VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. 2. CHIPPUKUTTY NAIR VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701.** **BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **--------------** **1. KUMARAN NAIR VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. 2. NARAYANAN NAIR VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. * 3. RAMANKUTY NAIR VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. DIED 4. GOPALAN KUTTY NAIR VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. 5. PUSHAPALATHA VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. 6. RAVEENDRAN VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. 7. RADHAKRISHNAN VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. 8. PREMALATHA VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701. 9. ERESANKUTTY VARAVARA VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701.** **OP(C).No. 1791 of 2015 (O)** **10.GIRIJA DEVI** **VARAVARA HOUSE, KANNADI, PALAKKAD-678 701.** **11. SARALA DEVI** **W/O GANGADHARAN, SARANGANGA, VALLIKKODE, PALAKKAD-678594.** **[*DEATH OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS RECORDED AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NEED NOT BE IMPLEADED, AS PER ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 IN MEMO DATED 20.01.2016 BEARING CF NO.4896/2015]** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(C).No. 1791 of 2015 (O)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBTI P1: COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 34/2012 DATED 4.1.2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF PRINCIPAL COURT, PALAKKAD.** **EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.3.2015 IN OP(C)NO.883/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF IA 1639/2015 DATED 09.06.2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF (PRINCIPAL) COURT, PALAKKAD.** **EXHIHIT P4: COPY OF OBJECTION TO IA NO.1639/2015 FILED BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT DATED 11.6.2015.** **EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.6.2015 IN IA 1639/2015 IN OS 34/2012.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **-----------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE SKV** ## **K. HARILAL, J.** ===================== O.P.(Civil) No.1791 of 2015 ======================= Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2017 ## JUDGMENT The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed O.S.No.34/2012 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Palakkad seeking a declaration that the two gift deeds executed by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants are null and void. In the Original plaint, it was averred that the signatures might have been obtained through fraud, coercion or other vitiating circumstances. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1639/2015 to amend the plaint, so as to incorporate the pleadings that the signatures in the document did not belong to their mother, Kannu Amma. 2. Respondents herein, who are the defendants in the suit resisted the said application, contending that the pleadings sought to be incorporated afresh would change nature and character of the original suit. O.P.(Civil) No.1791 of 2015 2 3. After considering the rival pleas, the court below dismissed the application by Ext.P5 on a finding that the character of the suit could not be altered and prejudice will be caused to the opposite party, if the amendment is allowed. The legality and propriety of the reasoning, whereby the trial court dismissed the application, is challenged in this Original Petition (Civil). 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, the suit is one for a declaration that gift deeds executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants in favour of the defendants are null and void. Originally, it was pleaded that the signature in the gift deed might have been obtained through fraud, coercion or other vitiating circumstances, but subsequently, by way of amendment they want to incorporate the pleading that the signature in the document did not belong to Kannu Amma. O.P.(Civil) No.1791 of 2015 3 6. The aim and object of Chapter VI Rule 17 of the CPC is to avoid multiplicity of suit on the same cause of action. In ## **Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And** **Others** [AIR (1957) SC 363] the Supreme Court held that “All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions:- - a) not working injustice to the other side. - b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.” 7. In **Pillai v. P. Pillai and Another** [AIR 2000 SC 614], the Supreme Court held that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. But, liberal approach should be the general rule particularly where the other side can be compensated with the costs. 8. This Court is of the view that by the incorporation the said new pleadings by way of amendment, the nature and character of the original suit will not be altered or changed, as both earlier and the new pleadings would fall under the same O.P.(Civil) No.1791 of 2015 4 relief i.e, “Annul the gift deeds and declare that the gift deeds executed by Kannu Amma are null and void”. What is the basic pleading in the suit? The basic pleading in the suit is that the gift deeds are null and void, as they lack credence and credibility. The said basic pleading is not altered by the fresh pleading that the signature in the document did not belong to Kannu Amma. The modus operandi by which the defendants allegedly obtained the signature of the donor alone is sought to be amended, and this will not alter the basic nature and character of the suit. In the above analysis, the trial court is not justified in finding that the basic character and nature of the suit will be altered if amendment application is allowed. This Court is of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the defendants, if the application is allowed, provided that they are also given an opportunity to file additional written statement or amend their present written statement, whichever they prefer. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.1639/2015 will stand O.P.(Civil) No.1791 of 2015 5 allowed. The defendants are given an opportunity to file additional written statement or amend the present written statement, whichever they prefer. Sd/- **K. HARILAL, JUDGE** SKV