Kannan and Others vs Chirudu and Others

P.T. Raman Nayar, J.—I think that the court below erred in disallowing the amendment sought by the plaintiffs-petitioners. The suit as it stands is for a declaration of title and for an injunction restraining the defendants, who live in a house on the property, from committing waste thereon. The amendment sought is only in respect of the relief, the plaintiffs asking for a decree for possession on the averment that, subsequent to the suit, the defendants have been preventing them from entering on the property thus virtually depriving them of possession.

I fail to see how it can be said, as the court below has done, that this will introduce a totally new and different case and if allowed will "convert the suit into another of a different and inconsistent, character". The title agitated is the same; only a new relief necessitated by subsequent events and essential for an effective adjudication is sought; and the suit remains substantially the same. The facts in AIR 1922 249 (Privy Council) , relied upon by the lower court are altogether different; and those in Sobharaj v. Variomal AIR 1942 Sind 4; Kesho Ram Passey Vs. Dr. P.C. Tandon and Another, , readily distinguishable. Whether the last mentioned three cases were correctly decided may itself be open to question but it is not necessary to go into that. The decision in Amritlal N. Shah v. Annapurnamma, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 9, contains an exhaustive review of the case law on the point and I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion therein that, when by reason of subsequent events the original relief claimed has become inappropriate or when it is necessary to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties, it is incumbent on the court to take note of these subsequent events and mould its relief accordingly, leave to amend being granted, if necessary for the purpose, under Order 6 Rule 17, C. P. C.

I allow the petition with costs, and grant the plaintiff''s application for amendment of their plaint.