Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A. M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA – APPELLANT
Versus
SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO .19400 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8858 of 2017]
Decided On : 15-12-2017
(2003) 3 SCC 524 – Relied upon
(1986) 3 SCC 567; (1987) 1 SCC 204 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Desh Raj Bhatia acquired the leasehold rights of suit property on 13 February 1962. On his death, his children allegedly relinquished their rights and interest in favour of their mother, Lajwanti Bhatia. She executed a will bequeathing the property to her son Ratan Lal Bhatia who became the exclusive owner of the property on her death. The original plaintiff, Sharda Rani Bhatia is the widow of Ratan Lal Bhatia. The appellant is the son of Ratan Lal Bhatia. Ratan Lal Bhatia died intestate. On his death, a registered deed of relinquishment was executed in favour of Sharda Rani Bhatia by the appellant and the respondent, the sons of Ratan Lal Bhatia and by Shakti Bhatia in favour of their mother. The original plaintiff is stated to have permitted the appellant and the respondent to reside along with her in the property. The suit was filed by Sharda Rani Bhatia for recovery of possession from the appellant and for consequential relief. The original plaintiff is stated to have executed a deed of gift in favour of the respondent in 2003 after which he was impleaded as co-plaintiff. The original plaintiff died in 2005 and the suit is being pursued by the respondent.
Issues were framed on 14 August 2003. The respondent moved an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed. The appellant filed a written statement to the amended plaint. The appellant filed an application for amendment of the written statement which was allowed by the trial court.
The respondent filed an application seeking review of the order. On 3 June 2016, the respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
High court transgressed its jurisdiction under Article 227.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined to ensuring the proper exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts or tribunals. It does not function as an appellate court or tribunal and cannot review or reassess evidence upon which the lower court's decision is based (!) .
The High Court improperly entered into the merits of the case when it set aside the order allowing the amendment of the written statement, which is beyond its permissible scope under Article 227 (!) (!) .
The original suit involved a dispute over property rights, with allegations of relinquishment, oral family arrangements, and claims of joint family property and coparcenary rights. The case also included claims regarding the nature of the property—whether it was self-acquired or ancestral—and the rights of various family members (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant sought to amend the written statement to introduce detailed averments about the ancestral and coparcenary nature of the property, which was initially based on the original written statement. The amendment aimed to elaborate on the property’s status as a joint Hindu family property and family arrangements (!) (!) (!) .
The High Court found that the amendment was not bona fide or necessary for determining the real issues, and that the attempt to introduce new facts was a belated effort to change the case's fundamental nature, which was not permissible given the timing and circumstances (!) (!) .
The original written statement already contained assertions that the property was joint family property and that family members were living together, with some references to oral arrangements. The proposed amendment was essentially an elaboration of existing defenses rather than a new case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that whether an amendment is allowed does not depend on the likelihood of success but on procedural and jurisdictional limits. It also highlighted that the High Court improperly considered the merits of the case while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227, which is not permitted (!) .
The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the order of the trial court permitting the amendment was affirmed. No costs were ordered in the circumstances (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
JUDGEMENT
Dr D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J
1. The present appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 5 October 2016 by which an order of the Trial Court allowing an application filed by the appellant for amendment of the written statement was set aside.
2. On 11 October 2002, Sharda Rani Bhatia instituted a suit for the recovery of possession, arrears of damages and mesne profits against the appellant. The property in dispute is situated on the first floor at 1/6 Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the original plaintiff is that Desh Raj Bhatia acquired the leasehold rights on 13 February 1962. On his death, his children are stated to have relinquished their rights and interest in favour of their mother, Lajwanti Bhatia. She executed a will bequeathing the property to her son Ratan Lal Bhatia who is stated to have become the exclusive owner of the property on her death. The original plaintiff, Sharda Rani Bhatia is the widow of Ratan Lal Bhatia. The appellant is the son of Ratan Lal Bhatia. Ratan Lal Bhatia died intestate. On his death, a registered deed of relinquishment was executed in favour of Sharda Rani Bhatia by the appellant and the respondent, the sons of Ratan Lal Bhatia and by Shakti Bhatia in favour of their mother. The original plaintiff is stated to have permitted the appellant and the respondent to reside along with her in the property. The suit was filed by Sharda Rani Bhatia for recovery of possession from the appellant and for consequential relief. The original plaintiff is stated to have executed a deed of gift in favour of the respondent in 2003 after which he was impleaded as co-plaintiff. The original plaintiff died in 2005 and the suit is being pursued by the respondent.
3. The appellant filed his written statement in the suit on 22 February 2003. According to the appellant, the respondent had exercised undue influence in obtaining the deed of relinquishment. According to him, parties had lived together jointly even after the alleged relinquishment. The appellant claims that an oral understanding was arrived at by which he was to occupy the first and second floors together with the terrace whereas the respondent was to occupy the ground floor exclusively and their mother was to live on the ground floor or, with any of her sons, as she desired. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the family arrangement was acted upon and the appellant is in occupation of the first and second floors together with the terrace while the respondent is in possession of the ground floor.
4. Issues were framed on 14 August 2003. The respondent moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint on 7 February 2013, which was allowed on 21 September 2013. The appellant filed a written statement to the amended plaint. The appellant filed an application for amendment of the written statement in March 2016, which was opposed by the respondent. The Trial Court allowed the application by an order dated 11 April 2016.
5. The respondent filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC seeking review of the order dated 11 April 2016. On 3 June 2016, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition was allowed by the impugned order dated 5 October 2016.
6. By the proposed amendment, the appellant inter alia sought to introduce the following averments in the written statement:
“22. That as a matter of fact the property in question is the ancestral, joint Hindu Family Property as initially in view of the pleadings as well the same was purchased by Desh Raj Bhatia, grandfather of the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant. After the death of Desh Raj Bhatia, who died intestate, the suit property was inherited by all the legal heirs namely Smt. Rajwanti Bhatia (widow), Sunita Rani Bhatia (Daughter), Walaityi Ram Bhatia (Son), Om Prakash Bhatia(Son), Tilak Raj Bhatia (Son), Ratan Lal Bhatia (son), Smt Sita Virmani (daughter), Smt Shakuntala Bhati
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
