Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
Malvinder Singh & Others - Appellants
Versus
Govind Ballabh Bhagat & Others - Respondents
CM(M). No. 583 of 2018 & CM. APPL. No. 20259 of 2018
Decided On : 19-08-2019
For the Petitioner:Manjula Gandhi, Bhawna, Aditya Kapoor, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Abdul Kalam, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for the determination of the real controversy, and due diligence in drafting original pleadings is essential. The Court also emphasized the imposition of substantial costs to discourage mala fide amendments and compensate the other party for inconvenience and expenses.
Headnote:
AMENDMENT - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit claiming ownership of a property inherited from their ancestors. The defendants claimed to have purchased the property from the sisters of the respondents' alleged mother. The respondents sought to amend their pleadings to correct the relationship with their alleged mother from biological to step-mother.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the amendment, noting that the controversy remained unchanged, and refusing the amendment would require the plaintiffs to go to trial on the original incorrect pleadings. The Court also enhanced the costs awarded against the plaintiffs due to their mis-adventurous pleadings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment to correct the relationship with the alleged mother should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the amendment should be allowed as it was necessary for the determination of the real controversy and did not prejudice the defendants. The Court also emphasized the need for due diligence in drafting original pleadings and imposed substantial costs to send a message to the parties.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of by allowing the amendment and enhancing the costs awarded against the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 27.03.2018 in CS No.10830/2016, whereby the ADJ-06, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi allowed the application of the plaintiffs [respondents herein] under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”] for amendment of the plaint.
Facts
2. The respondents/plaintiffs in the suit are the descendants of one Khyali Ram Bhagat, plaintiff No.1 being his son [Govind Ballabh Bhagat], and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 being the legal heirs of his predeceased son [Late Lalit Mohan Bhagat]. The respondents herein filed the suit on 22.12.2014 in respect of a property bearing No. 572/2, Masjid Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014.
3. The claim in the plaint was that the plaintiffs/respondents were the descendants of Late Khyali Ram Bhagat and Late Kamla Sharma and that the plaintiff No.1 and his brother [late Lalit Mohan Bhagat] were born out of the wedlock between these two persons. It is alleged that Kamla Sharma had two sisters, namely, Vimla Sharma and Sarla Sharma. They were the daughters of one Ram Karan Das. The claim in the suit was that the suit property had been inherited by the three sisters from their father, and that the plaintiffs/respodnents were their only remaining legal heirs, as the two sisters of Kamla Sharma [Vimla Sharma & Sarla Sharma] died issueless and without leaving any legal heirs. It was further averred that the two sisters of Kamla Sharma had executed a general power of attorney in her favor, in respect of the suit property, on 26.06.1995. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the defendants [petitioners herein] have illegally claimed to be the owners of the suit property under a purported sale deed dated 16.05.2013, allegedly executed by Sarla Sharma in their favour. Consequently, the plaintiffs/respondents have claimed a declaration that the sale deed dated 16.05.2013 is null and void, and possession as well as occupation charges in respect of the part of the suit property, said to be in the possession of defendant no 3 [petitioner No.3 herein].
4. In the written statement dated 12.03.2015 filed by the defendants/petitioners, the case of the plaintiffs was rebutted unequivocally. Pertinently, the defendants stated that Kamla Sharma had predeceased Sarla Sharma, who had survived the two sisters [Kamla Sharma and Vimla Sharma], and became the sole owner of the suit property. The defendants therefore claimed that the sale deed dated 16.05.2013 executed by Sarla Sharma in their favour was valid and legal. The defendants claimed that Kamla Sharma was in fact unmarried and died without leaving any legal heirs. It is their case that, after Kamla Sharma’s death on 27.05.2009, her sisters became owners of the suit property to the extent of 50% each, and after the death of Vimla Sharma on 02.02 2011, Sarla Sharma became the sole legal owner of the suit property.
5. In the replication dated 13.07.2015 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, they continued to assert that late Kamla Sharma was the wife of Khyali Ram Bhagat and that they were the only legal heirs.
6. However the plaintiffs/respondents subsequently filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in October 2017. They sought to amend the plaint to the effect that Kamla Sharma was the step-mother of plaintiff No. 1 and his brother [Late Lalit Mohan Bhagat, under whom the other plaintiffs/respondents have claimed their respective rights], and not their biological mother. The case made out in the amendment application is that the plaintiffs had inadvertently described Kamla Sharma as their biological mother, rather than their step-mother.
7. This application was also resisted on behalf of the defendants on the ground that it introduces an entirely new and different case, contrary to the original pleadings. The defendants referred to the order passed by this Court dated 21.09.2015 [prior to transfer of the suit to the Trial Court], by which the plaintif
