- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents were admitted owners of land measuring 5 acres 39 guntas situated at Bhoopasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. An agreement dated 25-01-1991 was entered into between the parties. On the basis of that agreement, the appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the appellants’ possession and activities on the land.
In the written statement, the respondents initially pleaded (in paragraph 6) that they had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff, while also asserting that possession was never delivered, that the plaintiff failed to pay further amounts, and that the agreement was cancelled by legal notice dated 19-03-1991.
The respondents later filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to amend their pleadings to deny that the agreement was an agreement of sale, and instead to assert that the agreement was for development of the land for mutual benefit, along with deletion of the words “of sale” in certain other parts of the pleadings.
The trial court dismissed the amendment application. In revision (CRP No. 5246 of 1991), the High Court by judgment dated 06-09-1994 allowed the amendment. The present appeal by special leave challenged the High Court’s order permitting amendment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondents could be permitted, by amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, to modify/withdraw an earlier admission in the written statement that the agreement dated 25-01-1991 was an agreement of sale.
- Whether the High Court committed a material irregularity in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC in allowing the amendment of the written statement.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The respondents had made an admission that they entered into an agreement of sale and had supported it with related averments.
- An admission is material evidence in favour of the appellant and binds the respondents; the respondents should not be allowed to “wriggle out” of it.
- The proposed amendment sought withdrawal of the admission and introduction of additional, inconsistent facts.
- Therefore, the High Court was not justified in permitting such amendment.
Respondents' Arguments
This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected the appellant’s objection to the amendment. It held that it is settled law that even an admission may be explained, and that even inconsistent pleas can be taken in pleadings. The Court noted that while a definite stand was taken in paragraph 6 of the written statement, the respondents later sought to modify that stand through an amendment application.
On that basis, the Court concluded that the High Court committed no material irregularity in exercising its power under Section 115 CPC to permit the amendment of the written statement.
The Court further observed that since the terms of the agreement are the subject-matter of the suit, the parties would be at liberty, while adducing evidence, to explain the terms and conditions of the covenants and the circumstances under which they were executed.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
As a direct consequence, the High Court’s order allowing amendment of the written statement remained in force, permitting the respondents to alter their pleadings regarding the nature of the agreement (from “agreement of sale” to an agreement for development for mutual benefit, and associated deletions). The Court also clarified that, at trial, the parties may lead evidence to explain the agreement’s terms and the circumstances of its execution. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond applying the stated principle that admissions may be explained and inconsistent pleas may be raised.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. Admittedly the respondents are owners of the land measuring 5 acres 39 guntas in Bhoopasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. An agreement dated 25-1-1991 was entered into between the appellants and the respondents. On the basis thereof the appellants filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interdicting with his possession and further activities thereon. The written statement was filed taking certain stands. In para 6 of the written statement, the respondents have stated thus:
“It is true that this defendant has entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property on 25-1-1991 and for a sale consideration of Rs 29,87,000 and that day the plaintiff has paid sum of Rs 25,000 as token advance and agreed to pay a sum of Rs 5,00,000 within 2 weeks from the date of agreement and the balance amount shall be paid on or before 31-3-1992. But the possession of the schedule property was not delivered to the plaintiff at all. It is relevant to state here that the plaintiff has not acted upon as per the terms of the agreement and he has not paid further advance amount of Rs 5,00,000 till 19-3-1991, in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the defendant. Hence the defendant was constrained to cancel the agreement dated 25-1-1991 by issuing a legal notice on 19-3-1991. It is also relevant to state here that though there is a mention regarding delivery of possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff in the agreement, the possession has not been delivered to the plaintiff at any point of time. On the other hand the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and all the revenue records stands in the name of this defendant. It is further submitted that the defendant is in actual possession of the schedule land which makes it more crystal clear from the documents referred to above and produced along with the written statement.”
Subsequently an application under Order 6, Rule 17 was filed for amendment of the first sentence of para 6 which reads thus:
“Delete the averments made in para 6 of the written statement:
‘It is true that this defendant has entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property on 25-1-1991 for a sale consideration amount of Rs 29,87,000.’
In place of it add:
‘It is incorrect to state that the defendants have entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 25-1-1991. It is true that these defendants have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 25-1-1991 for the development of the suit schedule land for the mutual benefit of the parties.’
2. Delete the words, ‘of sale’ in fifth line of para 8 of the written statement.
3. Delete the words ‘of sale’ in lines 9 and 13 of para 5 of the objection statement to IA.
4. Delete the words ‘of sale’ in lines 9 and 13 of para 5 of the objection statement to IA No. 2.”
3. The trial court dismissed the petition holding that it is not open to the respondents to explain whether the agreement entered into was an agreement of sale or for mutual benefit since the agreement was sub silentio in that behalf. The High Court in CRP No. 5246 of 1991 by judgment dated 6-9-1994, allowed the amendment. Thus this appeal by special leave.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that having made an admission that the respondents had entered into an agreement of sale and having made certain averments in support thereof, it was not open to the respondents to wriggle out from the admission. Admission is a material piece of evidence which would be in favour of the appellant and binds the respondents. When the admission is sought to be withdrawn and some additional facts are sought to be introduced, it would be inconsistent and the High Court was not justified in permitting such an amendment.
5. We find no force in the contention. It is settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. It is seen that in para 6 of the written statement a definite stand was taken but subsequently in the application for amendment it was sought to be modified as indicated in the petition. In that view of the matter, we find that there is no material irregularity committed by the High Court in exercising its power under Section 115 CPC in permitting amendment of the written statement.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
7. Since the terms of the agreement are subject-matter in the suit, it would be open to the parties, while adducing evidence, to explain the terms and conditions of the covenant and the circumstances in which they came to be executed.
Alert