Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Miss Susmita Roy, daughter of Late Sitish Chandra Roy – Appellant
Versus
Sri Subir Kumar Roy, son of Late Sitish Chandra Roy – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 54 of 2023
Decided on : 28-06-2024
[AMENDMENT] - [Partition Suit] - [Order VI Rule 17 CPC] - [The court discussed the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which allows for amendments to pleadings to ensure that the real questions in controversy are determined. The court interpreted that the proposed amendment to challenge the validity of a gift deed was necessary for the proper adjudication of the partition suit, as the gift deed directly impacted the plaintiff's claim to the property. The court concluded that allowing the amendment would not change the nature of the suit from partition to declaratory, as the primary relief sought remained partition, and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a partition suit claiming a 1/3rd share in a multi-storied building. The defendants contended that the property was gifted to one of them by their father through a gift deed. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to declare the gift deed void, claiming ignorance of it until the defendants' written statement was filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment was necessary to resolve the real controversy regarding the validity of the gift deed, which was crucial for the partition claim. It held that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit and that the plaintiff's application was within the limitation period.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment would change the nature of the suit from partition to declaratory. 2. Whether the amendment was barred by limitation. 3. Whether allowing the amendment would cause prejudice to the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that amendments should be allowed to ensure complete justice and that the nature of the suit would not change if the primary relief remained the same. It ruled that the limitation period for challenging the gift deed began when the plaintiff became aware of it through the defendants' written statement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order allowing the amendment, affirming that the amendment was necessary for the proper adjudication of the partition suit.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 19.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, Jamshedpur in Original (P) Suit No. 72 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 19.11.2022 filed on behalf of respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17, seeking therein the amendment to make addition in the prayer for challenging the gift deed dated 16.01.2008 by which the land which is the subject matter of partition suit has been disclosed to be gifted by the father of the defendant, has been allowed.
Brief Facts of the Case:
2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for partition being Original (Partition) Suit No. 72 of 2019 for a decree of partition claiming 1/3rd share in a ‘multi-storied building consisting of a basement along with ground +7 floors situated over a lease hold land measuring 40 feet X 60 feet situated on Holding No. 107, S.N.P. Area, Sakchi Highway, Sakchi Post Office Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East and has also prayed for appointment of a Survey knowing pleader commissioner for demarcation and allocation of the suit property as per Preliminary Decree along with a prayer for a Final Decree embodying the report of the Survey knowing pleader Commissioner.
3. The petitioners-defendants filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint stating therein that description of suit property, as mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint, is incorrect as the multi-storied building consists of a semi basement along with five upper floors standing over land situated at Company’s Holding No. 107 SNP Area, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. It has further been submitted that Holding No. 107 SNP Area, Sakchi, Jamshedpur was originally leased out by Tata Iron and Steel Company in favour of Khitish Chandra Roy, the grandfather of petitioner no. 1. The said Khitish Chandra Roy during his lifetime had constructed a single storied building over the said Holding and started residing therein with his family.
4. The said Khitish Chandra Roy died leaving behind his widow Manorama Devi and two sons, namely, Sitish Chandra Roy (father of petitioner no. 1) and Jyotish Chandra Roy.
5. It has further been stated that said Jyotish Chandra Roy, without the consent of Sitish Chandra Roy, sold the southernmost portion of land measuring 20 feet X 60 feet by virtue of registered sale deed to one Ram Sagar Gupta and similarly Manorma Devi had also sold the northernmost portion measuring 20 feet X 60 feet in faovur of one Ram Sagar Gupta by virtue of registered sale deed.
6. Aggrieved thereof, said Sitish Chandra Roy filed two separate suits for pre-emption, which were decreed on contest, against which, said Ram Sagar Gupta preferred first appeal, which was dismissed. Since no appeal has been preferred against the order passed in first appeal, as such judgment and order passed by the learned Court attained finality.
7. Thereafter, said Sitish Chandra Roy (father of petitioner no. 1) executed a Deed of Gift with respect to entire Holding No. 107 SNP Area, Sakchi, Jamshedpur measuring 40 feet X 60 feet along with super structures in favour of his daughter by virtue of registered deed of gift being Deed No. 577 dated 16.01.2008.
8. It has further been stated that said Sitish Chandra Roy died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Subrata Kumar Roy and Subir Kumar Roy and one daughter, namely, Miss Susmita Roy (petitioner no. 1). Subrata Kumar Roy died on 20.10.2010.
9. It has been stated that petitioner no. 1 entered in a development agreement with petitioner no. 7 and sold different portions of the suit property to petitioner nos. 5, 6 and 7.
10. After filing of said written statement by the defendant-respondent herein, the petitioners during pendency of the suit filed a petition dated 19.11.2022 under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint with a prayer for an additional relief for a decree declaring that the D
The court upheld the ruling that amendments to pleadings are permissible to facilitate just adjudication without injustice, reaffirming established principles governing such applications under the Co....
Amendment of Written Statement – Inordinate delay in filing application for amendment of written statement cannot be allowed.
(1) Amendment of plaint – At stage of amendment, merits or correctness of plea sought to be added is not required to be gone into.(2) Amendment of plaint – Partition suit – Mere delay in filing petit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to allow amendments to the plaint to prevent the inexecutability of a partition decree.
Amendments to pleadings in partition suits should be liberally allowed to ensure justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, without assessing the merits of the amendment at the initial stage.
Amendments to written statements after commencement of trial require stringent adherence to procedural rules, especially regarding justification for delay and ensuring no change in the nature of the ....
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
