Bombay High Court

BHASKAR WAMAN AARANGALE AND OTHERSversusNYAHABAI ALIAS NANYABAI VITTHAL AARANGALE DIED THR LRS AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The amendment is permissible as it does not violate the limitation period and does not impermissibly alter the nature of the suit.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a trial court order that allowed the plaintiffs to amend their suit to include a declaration of title and a challenge to a sale deed dated 14-12-2025. The plaintiffs, who sought a perpetual injunction, claimed possession of the suit property and alleged that they only became aware of the sale deed in 2019. The petitioners argued that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and raise a limitation issue under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The High Court examined whether the amendment was barred by limitation and whether it altered the suit's character. Finding no fault with the trial court’s discretion and noting that the limitation period would commence from the date of knowledge, the Court held the amendment permissible. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment of the plaint to add a declaration of title and challenge a sale deed is permissible.
Whether such amendment is barred by the limitation period under the Limitation Act.
Whether the amendment changes the nature of the original suit for perpetual injunction.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 58

Subjects

amendment of plaint
limitation period
declaration of title
sale deed challenge
perpetual injunction
writ petition
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7893

1 wp 1633.26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

941 WRIT PETITION NO. 1633 OF 2026

Bhaskar Waman Aarangale And Others
VERSUS
Nyahabai Alias Nanyabai Vitthal Aarangale Died Thr Lrs And
Others
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Gandhi
...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : February 12, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated

6.9.2022 passed below Exhibit-22 in R.C.S. No.270 of 2018

pending before the learned Civil Judge J.D. Rahata, by which

application filed by respondents/plaintiffs seeking amendment

in the plaint has been allowed.

2. Respondents/plaintiffs instituted the suit simplicitor for

injunction in respect of the suit property. Petitioners appeared

in the suit, filed their written statement contending that the

suit property is in their possession and they have transferred

the suit property under registered sale-deed dated 14.12.2015

in favour of their wives.
2 wp 1633.26.odt

3. In light of aforesaid pleadings, plaintiffs filed an

application below Exhibit-22 seeking permission to amend the

plaint and incorporate challenge to the sale-deed dated

14.12.2025 and seek declaration of their ownership. Trial

Court allowed the said amendment vide impugned order dated

6.9.2022.

4. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for petitioners

raises two-fold objections to the impugned order. According to

him, amendment would change very nature of the suit as relief

of declaration has to be added in addition to relief of perpetual

injunction as claimed in the suit. Secondly, sale deed dated

14.12.2025 is sought to be challenged. As such, issue of

limitation would arise in respect of proposed claim of

declaration.

5. Perusal of reasoning adopted by the trial court shows

that so far as sale deed dated 14.12.2025, plaintiffs are

specifically coming with a case that they got knowledge about

aforesaid sale-deed only when defendants tendered written

statement and made reference to the sale-deed in question. As

such, plaintiffs asserts knowledge about sale-deed first time in

the year 2019. So far as relief of declaration is concerned, it
3 wp 1633.26.odt

would be governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The

three years limitation as prescribed would start from the date

of knowledge. Prima facie, it does not appear to be a case of

amendment as regards to time barred case. However, the issue

of limitation can be framed and decided by the trial Court

considering rival contentions.

6. It can be observed that plaintiffs are asserting their

possession over suit property and, therefore, they sought relief

of perpetual inunction in the plaint. In written statement,

defendants raised challenge to plaintiffs title. Eventually,

plaintiffs required to add relief of declaration of their title and

challenge sale-deed in question. In that view of the matter, no

fault can be found in the impugned order permitting

amendment in the plaint. Needless to state that petitioners/

defendants are entitled to put their defense in relation to

amended pleadings and Trial Court is bound to frame the

appropriate issues in light of defenses raised in the written

statement. In result, writ petition stands rejected. No costs.

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
…
AAA/-f

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…