Supreme Court allows plaint amendment at belated stage to challenge a compromise decree, with Rs 25,000 costs; limitation question left open

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of judgment: 12 October 2026
Case: C.A. No. 13681/2026
Parties: HARAMANI SAHOO Vs LALITA NAYAK
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan
Outcome: Allowed

Summary

The Supreme Court has set aside the Orissa High Court and a Cuttack trial court, and allowed a plaintiff's heirs to amend a plaint in a title suit filed in 2009. The amendment brings in a challenge to a compromise decree in another suit, which the original plaintiff says he learnt of only after obtaining certified copies on 22.06.2020. A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, in the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan, held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was satisfied because due diligence was shown at this stage, and that the amendment did not change the nature and character of the suit.

The appellants are the legal heirs of Rabindranath Sahoo, who filed C.S. No.86 of 2009 for a declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property, recovery of possession, rectification of registered sale deeds dated 15.02.1971 and 28.07.1978, and consequential reliefs. The deeds covered Hal Plot No.3370/4045 (Ac. 0.10 decimals) and Hal Plot No.3371/4050 (Ac. 0.02 decimals), together Ac. 0.12 decimals out of Ac. 0.16 decimals under Hal Khata No.198.

According to the appellants, Plot No.3370/4045 passed through successive sale deeds from Defendant No.3 to Defendant No.2 (1976), to Defendant No.1 (2005) and to Defendant No.11 (2015). Plot No.3371/4050 was sold by Defendant No.8 to Defendant Nos.9 and 10 in 2007, and the source of title of Defendant No.8 was then unknown to the plaintiff. After Defendant Nos.9 and 10 disclosed their record entries in the written statement, the plaintiff first sought to amend the plaint to plead that this plot was the exclusive property of one Mayadhar Mohapatra under a mutual partition among purchasers under a registered sale deed of 1940. Those defendants denied this in an additional written statement.

The plaintiff then filed a further application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. He said that a search in the Tahsildar's office at Niali showed a compromise decree in T.S. No.105 of 1998, to which he was not a party, and he sought to plead the foundational facts about that suit and a declaration that its final decree was null and void. The plaintiff died while the application was pending and the appellants were brought on record. The trial court rejected the application on 21.09.2022. The High Court dismissed C.M.P. No.1091 of 2022 on 10.04.2023, and the appellants came to the Supreme Court.

The question before the court

Whether the plaintiff showed due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC for an amendment sought after the trial had begun
Whether the proposed challenge to a compromise decree changes the nature and character of the suit
Whether an arguable plea of limitation or the bar in Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC justifies refusing the amendment at the threshold

What each side argued

The appellants said the transactions go back to 1940 and involve several persons claiming rights in different capacities, so pleadings needed correction from time to time despite due diligence. The Tahsildar's order of 31.08.2007 in R.P. Case No.998 of 2005 itself noted multiple registered sale deeds for the same property and that he could not decide the matter.
They said the respondents had not disclosed their full source of title, and that certified copies of the plaint and final decree in T.S. No.105 of 1998 showed that Ac. 0.04 decimals, including the suit land of Ac. 0.02 decimals in Plot No.3371/4050, was allotted to Defendant No.8.
Relying on A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation and Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, they argued that the amendment sets up no new cause of action and is needed to bring the real question in controversy on record, and that limitation has to be examined on the facts of each case.
Respondent Nos.1 and 9 to 11 said the plaintiff had been protracting the proceedings for years by resorting to repeated Order VI Rule 17 applications, starting with C.S. No.185 of 2007 for injunction, and that an earlier amendment sought on 19.05.2017 was allowed with costs.
They said the application came after about fourteen years, without disclosing when or how the plaintiff learnt of the compromise decree, although Defendant Nos.9 and 10 had given their mutation particulars in their written statement in 2017. They relied on Basavaraj v. Indira and said the challenge was barred by limitation and by Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, and would allow them to circumvent the statutory bar.

The court's decision

The Court noted that the application was filed after the trial began, so the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 applied. Delay by itself was not decisive. The questions were whether the appellants showed that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before trial, and whether the amendment would fundamentally alter the nature and character of the suit.

On due diligence, the Bench observed that the suit concerns title and possession of the very property to which the proposed pleading relates. The case is that the plaintiff was not a party to T.S. No.105 of 1998, did not know of the compromise decree, and got certified copies of the plaint and final decree only on 22.06.2020, while the written statement of Defendant Nos.9 and 10 did not disclose their vendors' source of title. The Court said it need not finally decide whether the date of knowledge is correct. The explanation could not, at this stage, be called a mere omission, inadvertence or negligence, and the statutory requirement was satisfied.

The Court held that the amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit. It may enlarge the factual and legal questions, but that is not a fundamental alteration. It does not introduce a distinct controversy unconnected with the original cause of action. It brings on record additional facts and consequential reliefs with a direct nexus to the existing dispute, and the subject matter substantially overlaps with the suit.

On limitation and Order XXIII Rule 3A, the Court said it was concerned only with whether the amendment is permissible, and these objections could not be finally decided unless the claim is ex facie barred in law. Where limitation is arguable and depends on disputed facts such as the date of knowledge, the amendment need not be rejected at the threshold. Prejudice from having to meet new issues can be met by allowing an additional written statement and by costs. Refusal could split the title dispute over the same land into separate proceedings and risk inconsistent findings. Basavaraj v. Indira turned on its own facts and did not call for a different result. The Court also said that the considerable delay and the inconvenience to the respondents could not be ignored.

The orders of the trial court dated 21.09.2022 in C.S. No.86 of 2009 and of the High Court dated 10.04.2023 in C.M.P. No.1091 of 2022 were set aside and the amendment application was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.25,000 to the contesting respondents within two weeks. The appellants must make the consequential amendments in the plaint within four weeks after that. The respondents may file additional written statements within the period fixed by the trial court. Allowing the amendment is not an acceptance of its averments. Limitation, maintainability, Order XXIII Rule 3A, the validity and binding nature of the compromise decree, title, possession and the merits are left open for the trial court. The appeal was allowed in these terms and pending applications were disposed of.

Precedents referred to

A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385
Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341
Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1
Akkiraju Panduranga Rao v. Gunlapally Ranga Rao, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 805
Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan, (2001) 2 SCC 472
Basavaraj v. Indira, 2024 INSC 151 (distinguished)

Provisions referred to

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 17 and its proviso
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXIII Rule 3A

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: Supreme Court of India. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Civil Procedure Amendment Of Pleadings Property Limitation

Related judgments

Telangana High Court Allowed ·9 Oct 2026 ·Property ★ Editor's pick

Telangana HC restores two land suits between brothers for fresh trial: sale-agreement plaintiff's non-appearance excused as sufficient cause

The question: Whether dismissal of O.S.No.85 of 2013 for the plaintiff's non-appearance and failure to lead evidence could stand when he showed sufficient cause

The Telangana High Court has set aside a common judgment of a trial court that dismissed four connected suits over agricultural land at Ramavaram Village, Mahabubabad District, and has restored O.S.No.123 of 2012 and O.S.No.85 of 2013 for fresh disposal. Justice G.M. Mohiuddin held that the plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2013, an ailing man of about 79 to 80 years living in the United States, had shown sufficient cause for not appearing, and that the findings in O.S.No.123 of 2012, including those on revenue entries and possession, had been recorded without the evidence he now seeks to lead on the same transaction. The two sides are brothers. Kattar Jithender Rao and his wife sued in O.S.No.123 of 2012 for a declaration of ownership and possession of the A and B Schedule properties and a perpetual injunction, relying on an oral family partition of 1968-69 and a registered gift deed of 19.07.2012 from husband to wife. Kattar Upender Rao set up an unregistered sale deed dated 25.05.1996 for Rs.3,10,000, of which Rs.2,20,000 was allegedly paid, with possession delivered, and relied on revenue entries for 2000-01 to 2007-08. He himself sued for specific performance in O.S.No.85 of 2013, originally O.S.No.71 of 2009. By a common judgment dated 28.10.2021 the VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad, dismissed O.S.No.123 of 2012 and O.S.Nos.84, 85 and 86 of 2013. Jithender Rao appealed as A.S.No.157 of 2022 and Upender Rao as A.S.No.281 of 2022. The appeals were heard together and the judgment was reserved on 23.07.2026.

AS/157/2022

Karnataka High Court Dismissed ·28 Sep 2026 ·Property

Karnataka High Court: non-alienating sharer need not seek formal declaration against sale in partition suit

The question: Whether the appeal of defendant No. 3 survived after his earlier appeal on the same decree was dismissed

The plaintiff's appeal in RFA No. 1530/2020 was allowed and the appeals of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were dismissed. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 hold equal shares in suit items 1 and 2. A sharer in a partition suit cannot be non-suited merely because she did not seek a formal declaration that a sale by a family member is not binding on her. The plaintiff sued in 2004 for partition and separate possession of her share in two properties and for mesne profits. Her great grandfather had settled them on her father by a registered deed dated 28.06.1939. The father died intestate in April 1980, leaving the plaintiff and her brother (defendant No. 1). The brother sold item No. 1 to defendant No. 2 in 1998 and, with his children, item No. 2 to defendant No. 3 in 2001, without the plaintiff's consent. The trial Court decreed the suit in part on 30.05.2020. It gave the plaintiff a half share in item No. 2, following an earlier decree against defendant No. 3 that had become final when his appeal, RFA No. 1063/2010, was dismissed. It treated item No. 1 as ancestral and gave the plaintiff a one-fourth share in item No. 1. Three appeals followed: RFA No. 723/2021 by defendant No. 2, RFA No. 1530/2020 by the plaintiff and RFA No. 203/2021 by defendant No. 3, heard together.

RFA/1530/2020

Telangana High Court Disposed of ·29 Sep 2026 ·Property ★ Editor's pick

Telangana HC directs registration of a plot sale deed refused as unapproved layout, subject to regularisation charges

The question: Can a Sub-Registrar refuse to register a sale deed because the plot lies in an unapproved layout and no earlier registered document is shown?

The Telangana High Court has directed a Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed that he had refused to register because the plot lay in an unapproved layout. Justice Pulla Karthik relied on the common order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 16310 of 2019 and batch and on the Supreme Court judgment in K. Gopi, which say that a registering authority can refuse a document only on grounds found in the Registration Act, 1908 and is not concerned with the title of the person executing it. The order was passed on 29 September 2026 in a writ petition taken up for disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both sides. The petitioner, Peguda Narasimha, a 78-year-old retired employee, said he owns Plot No. 8, measuring 166 sq. yards, in Sai Nagar Colony, Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, under an Agreement of Sale dated 22 August 2026. On 7 September 2026 he presented a sale deed in favour of a purchaser to the Sub-Registrar, Kapra. The document was kept pending and then refused by an intimation dated 11 September 2026 under Section 71 of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar relied on a memo of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps of 26 August 2020, under which new plots in unapproved layouts are not to be registered unless they were earlier acquired through valid registered documents or have been regularised. The Court's order comes with conditions: the petitioner must pay the charges due under G.O.Ms.No.28 of 20 February 2025 and comply with the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act, and the registering authority remains free to refuse the document on any other ground, which it must record.

WP/32411/2026