Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

G. NAGAMMA AND ANR. versus SIROMENAMMA AND ANR.

Decided
27 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 701 · 1995 INSC 793
Also cited as
  • (1996) 2 SCC 25 (14 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 702, margin A

The appellants laid the suit for specific performance of the agreement of reconveyance dated 30th August, 1967. Application under Order 16 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating averments in para 3 thereof. Thus the appellants pleaded that the transactions of execution of sale deed and obtaining a document for reconveyance were single transactions, viz., mortgage by conditional sale. In paragraph 9, they wanted alternative relief to redeem the mortgage. At the end of the prayer, the plaintiff sought alternatively to grant a decree for redemption of mortgage. This application was rejected by the Trial Court. On revision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the same holding that in the original plaint the suit was for specific performance and the reconveyance was not incorporated in the sale deed and that, therefore, the amendment was not warranted. Amendment would change the nature of the suit as well as cause of action.

p. 702, margin B

We called upon the appellant to produce original agreement of reconveyance. We have S!!en the original document which contains the recitals in support of the contention raised by the appellants. It is settled law that the plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas. In this case, they are seeking alternative reliefs. The application was for amendment of the plaint whereby neither cause of action could change nor the relief could be materially affected. We allow the same.

p. 702, margin D

The appellants shall file amended plaint. It would be open to the respondents to raise all the defences by filing additional written statement. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within eight months from the date of the receipt of this order.

p. 702, margin F

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 702, margin G