In doing so, the Court upheld the order permitting the plaintiff to amend a pending suit concerning immovable property to incorporate a prayer for declaration of title, holding that the proposed amendment was not barred by limitation merely because it was sought after seven years.

Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes a three-year limitation period for obtaining a declaration, computed from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Article 65, on the other hand, provides a 12-year limitation period for suits for possession of immovable property based on title, running from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed the civil revision petition filed by the defendants, finding no illegality or irregularity in the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment.

The Court observed:

“Thus, a conspectus of the authorities referred to supra, in a suit relating to immovable property, Part V of the Limitation Act would apply, viz, Article 65 but not Article 58. In the case at hand, the suit was initially filed seeking a perpetual injunction in respect of immovable property. Pending the suit, after seven years, the interlocutory application was filed seeking amendment, one for declaration, and as the same is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Article 58 of the Act does not apply. In such a scenario, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation merits no consideration and falls to the ground.”

The case arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction of the defendants from the scheduled premises, vacant possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The defendants contested the suit. During the pendency of the proceedings, the first defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants.

The plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings and adding a relief of declaration. The plaintiff pleaded that the scheduled property was ancestral property and claimed title through his grandfather, who had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff's father. After the death of the plaintiff's father, the property was partitioned, under which the plaintiff claimed 8½ cents.

The defendants opposed the amendment, contending that the deceased first defendant had asserted ownership on the basis of a possessory agreement of sale allegedly executed by the plaintiff's father in 1994. They argued that the plaintiff had failed to seek amendment for seven years and that the proposed declaration was barred by limitation.

The Trial Court allowed the amendment.

Before the High Court, the defendants argued that the relief of declaration was governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and therefore had to be sought within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrued. They also contended that the amendment was sought after commencement of trial. According to them, the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the due diligence requirement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The High Court noted that an amendment can be permitted when it does not cause injustice to the opposite party and is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy.

It observed that courts should not adopt a hyper-technical approach while considering such applications and that a liberal approach should ordinarily be followed, particularly where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

The Court found that the proposed amendment “will not establish an entirely new case” and was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

On the limitation objection, the High Court held that Article 65, which applies to suits concerning immovable property, would govern the proposed declaration, and not Article 58. The Court therefore held that Article 58 had no application.

Finding that the Trial Court had exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in allowing the amendment, the High Court declined to interfere with the order.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Bethala Jaya Raju (Died) & Ors. v. Bethala Manikyal Rao

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2455 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner : G. Gopi Krishna, Sri Ravi. C. Siddharth