Name of the case: Sri. K.M. Krishna Reddy Vs. Sri. Vinod Reddy & Anr.

Case Number: [Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 2010]

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Judges Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal

Order Date: 06/10/2023

Facts of the Case:

• In this case, the plaintiff filed an appeal challenging a High Court judgment that set aside a decree issued by the first Appellate Court.
• The appellant (original plaintiff) filed a lawsuit seeking a perpetual injunction related to a specific immovable property (the “suit property”) described in the schedule to the plaint.
• The appellant claimed that he and his brothers had succeeded to the suit property after their father’s demise, as it was allotted to his share through a family settlement executed in 1993.
• The cause of action for the lawsuit stemmed from the respondents’ alleged attempt to interfere with the appellant’s possession of the suit property on June 18, 1994.
• The respondents (defendants) acknowledged that the suit property had originally belonged to the appellant’s father but contended that they had been in uninterrupted possession of the property since 1978, storing items like firewood, bricks, and manure.
• They argued that they had perfected their title to the suit property through adverse possession.
• The respondents also claimed that the suit property was allotted to the appellant’s brother in a partition after their father’s death, and an agreement for sale was executed in 1983, with consideration paid to that brother.
• They asserted that the appellant had colluded with his brother in filing the lawsuit.
• The appellant sought an amendment to the original plaint in 1997, adding a prayer for the declaration of ownership and possession. The trial court allowed this amendment in 1998.
• In response to the amendment, the respondents contended that the appellant could not improve his case through the amendment.
• The Trial Court dismissed the lawsuit and granted the counterclaim of the respondents.
• The District Court, upon appeal, reversed the Trial Court’s decision and decreed the appellant’s suit.
• The High Court, responding to a second appeal by the first respondent (defendant), ruled that the amendment was time-barred and thus dismissed the suit. The High Court did not address other issues.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that the title and ownership were already included in the original plaint, and the amendment was made for added caution.
• The respondents’ counsel contended that the suit was not maintainable because the amendment was time-barred.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Observed and Held as Follows:

• The Supreme Court found that the suit was based on the appellant’s title to the suit property, which was not disputed by the respondents in their written statement.
• The court held that the amendment was not required because there was no dispute over the appellant’s title, and there was no cloud on the title.
• The only issues in the suit were whether the appellant was in possession on the date of filing and whether the respondents had proved their claim of adverse possession.
• The High Court was instructed to consider the remaining issues since the amendment was found to be time-barred.
• The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for further consideration, emphasizing the need to address the merits of the suit and counterclaim. The High Court was directed to give priority to the case’s disposal due to its extended pendency since 2007.
• The court also pointed out that normally, it should not set a time-bound schedule for disposing of cases in High Courts, which are constitutional courts, but in this particular instance, given the prolonged duration, it ordered an expedited process. No costs were awarded in this case