Section 80 Notice, Amendment After Trial and Undervaluation in a Title Suit

Section 80(1) CPC is a condition precedent: no suit against the Government or a public officer in respect of an act purporting to be done in his official capacity can be instituted until two months after a written notice stating the name, description and residence of the plaintiff, the cause of action, and the relief claimed. Section 80(2) permits an immediate suit only with the leave of the court, which is meant for cases where immediate relief is necessary. The defect is not a mere irregularity; it makes the plaint liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) as barred by law. However, the protection is for the State and can be waived. Mere appearance and filing a written statement do not automatically prove waiver, but if the State has contested the merits without raising the objection, the court may record that it has waived the notice. The court should not infer waiver silently; it should frame and decide a preliminary issue.

The presence of Mohan does not cure the absence of notice so far as the State is concerned. The bar operates only against the State, so the suit can proceed against Mohan, against whom no notice is required. But if the land is alleged to be public drain land, the State may be a necessary party to decide title effectively. The court should therefore give the plaintiff a choice: either establish waiver by the State, or delete the State and proceed against Mohan, or withdraw with liberty to file a fresh suit after notice. It should not dismiss the entire suit against Mohan merely because the State was wrongly impleaded. If no waiver is proved and no leave is granted, the plaint should be rejected as against the State, with costs, while preserving the claim against the private defendant.

The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 bars an amendment after the trial has commenced unless the court concludes that, in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement. Trial commenced when issues were framed and the plaintiff's examination-in-chief began. The plaintiff knew the facts about possession and the 2021 sale deed before filing; the 2021 deed was registered and is a public document. Due diligence is therefore doubtful.

The prayer for possession stands on a different footing from the challenge to the 2021 deed. If the plaintiff is out of possession, a bare declaration may be academic and may attract Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which requires a consequential relief. Adding possession may be allowed if it is based on the same title and does not change the nature of the suit, especially to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court may allow it on costs and with an opportunity to the defendant to recall witnesses, while recording whether the plaintiff was genuinely diligent.

The challenge to the 2021 sale deed is a new cause of action against a new transaction and affects Sita, who is not a party. Although a suit to challenge a 2021 deed filed in 2024 would ordinarily be within the three-year period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, an amendment cannot be used after trial to introduce a new case and a new party. Sita would be affected without being heard. The plaintiff also knew of the deed before trial. The court should reject this part of the amendment, with liberty to file a separate suit, and allow only the possession amendment on terms. This balances the policy against belated amendments with the need to do complete justice.

A suit for declaration that a sale deed is void is ordinarily governed by Article 58 or 59 of the Limitation Act: three years from the date of knowledge of the right to sue. The deed is of 2018 and the suit of 2023, so it is prima facie beyond three years. Section 3 of the Limitation Act requires the court to dismiss a time-barred suit even if limitation is not pleaded. The plaintiff may argue that a deed void ab initio, such as one obtained by fraud or forgery, need not be set aside and that limitation runs only from knowledge. That argument cannot be accepted mechanically; the court must determine whether the deed is void or merely voidable and when the plaintiff had knowledge. Registration gives constructive notice, though it does not always prove actual knowledge.

The absence of a possession prayer is significant. If the plaintiff is out of possession, a declaration alone is not the substantive remedy; Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act requires a consequential relief. A court may treat the plaint as one for possession, but then the limitation analysis changes: Article 65 gives twelve years from dispossession, and the suit may be within time. The court cannot, however, grant possession without a proper prayer and court fee.

The valuation is also unsustainable. The suit is valued at ₹2 lakh for court fee although the property is worth ₹1.2 crore. Under the Suits Valuation Act and the Bihar Court-fees Act, the court must examine the basis of valuation, especially if possession is added. Undervaluation may require deficit court fee, and the pecuniary jurisdiction of Sub-Judge II must be checked. If the proper value exceeds that court's jurisdiction, the plaint should be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 for presentation before the competent court. These are preliminary issues, not mere technicalities.