2006 Supreme(P&H) 3025
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Ram Kumar
Versus
Madan Lal Tyagi
Civil Revision No. 5866 of 2005,
Decided On : JULY 28, 2006
The right of the defendants to file the amended written statement cannot be taken away.
Headnote:
Amendment - Validity of Registered Will - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 6 Rule 17, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 14 Rule 5 - 1. Whether Smt. Kailasho Devi now deceased the mother and Smt. Kalawati defendant No. 2 being the daughters are natural legal heirs of Smt. Chhohari Bai widow of Mam Chand deceased, if so, to what effect? 2. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the plaintiff is the son of Kailasho Devi daughter of Smt. Chhohari Bai and entitled to succeed to her estate, if so to what effect and to what extent? 3. If issue No. 1 and 2 are proved, whether Smt. Chhohari Bai deceased executed a valid and genuine Will dated 29.7.1972/5.10.1972 in favour of defendant No. 1, if so, to what effect? 4. In case the issue No. 3, is not proved, whether the mutation No. 770 dated 11.8.1982 sanctioned on the basis of impugned Will dated 5.10.1972 and also the jamabandi prepared on the basis of said mutation are illegal, null and void and liable to be corrected as prayed for in the plaintiff (plaint?)? 5. Whether the judgment and decree both dated 20.7.1991 suffered by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 to 5 in civil Suit No. 292 of 1991 and the mutation No. 1025 dated...sanctioned thereon and the jamabandi for the year 1997-98 and the subsequent jamabandi implementing this decree and mutation are illegal, null and void and liable extent? 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? 7. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, if so, to what effect? 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? 9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? 10. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged in the written statement? Relief.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit challenging the validity of a registered Will dated 5.10.1972 in favor of the petitioner-defendant No. l. The plaintiff-respondent sought amendment of the plaint to challenge a decree and sought pleading of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 in the suit. The applications for amendment were allowed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the applications for amendment of the plaint and framing of additional issues. The court also struck off the amended written statement filed by the defendants/respondents. The court held that the right of the defendants to file the amended written statement cannot be taken away and directed the trial court to re-decide the applications filed by the parties in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the registered Will, possession of the suit land, time-barred suit, cause of action, court fee and jurisdiction, estoppel, and maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right of the defendants to file the amended written statement cannot be taken away and directed the trial court to re-decide the applications filed by the parties in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The civil revisions were allowed, the impugned order dated 6.10.2004 was set aside, and the learned trial court was directed to re-decide the applications filed by the parties in accordance with the law.
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 5866 of 2005 and Civil Revision No. 5867 of 2005 involving common question of law and facts. However, for facility of reference, facts have been taken from Civil Revision No. 5866 of 2005.
2. The facts leading to the present revision are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit challenging the validity of registered Will dated 5.10.1972 in favour of petitioner-defendant No. l. The plaintiff-respondent field an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint in order to challenge the decree dated 20.7.1991 passed against petitioner No. 1 and in favour of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 and also sought pleading (impleading ?) of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 in the suit. The aforesaid application was allowed by the trial court. The said order was challenged by the present petitioners by taking a plea that the plaintiff-respondent was an imposer and had no right in the suit land. It was claimed that he was son of Sita Ram, who was the husband of Shakuntala and not the son of Kailasho Devi as alleged by him. It was further pleaded by the petitioner-defendants that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable as no relief of possession was prayed for.
3. The plaintiff-respondent thereafter filed another application on 13.1.2004 praying for amendment of the plaint. Alongwith this application, another application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. was also moved by him seeking framing of additional issues. In the application, the plaintiff had sought an amendment of the plaint by seeking to declare him as owner in joint possession of suit land and further sought amendment in the prayer clause. He also sought framing of issues afresh in the following terms:
1. Whether Smt. Kailasho Devi now deceased the mother and Smt. Kalawati defendant No. 2 being the daughters are natural legal heirs of Smt. Chhohari Bai widow of Mam Chand deceased, if so, to what effect? OPP
2. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the plaintiff is the son of Kailasho Devi daughter of Smt. Chhohari Bai and entitled to succeed to her estate, if so to what effect and to what extent? OPP
3. If issue No. 1 and 2 are proved, whether Smt. Chhohari Bai deceased executed a valid and genuine Will dated 29.7.1972/5.10.1972 in favour of defendant No. 1, if so, to what effect? OPP
4. In case the issue No. 3, is not proved, whether the mutation No. 770 dated 11.8.1982 sanctioned on the basis of impugned Will dated 5.10.1972 and also the jamabandi prepared on the basis of said mutation are illegal, null and void and liable to be corrected as prayed for in the plaintiff (plaint?)? OPP
5. Whether the judgment and decree both dated 20.7.1991 suffered by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 to 5 in civil Suit No. 292 of 1991 and the mutation No. 1025 dated...sanctioned thereon and the jamabandi for the year 1997-98 and the subsequent jamabandi implementing this decree and mutation are illegal, null and void and liable extent? OPP
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred?
7. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, if so, to what effect? OPD
8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD
10. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged in the written statement? OPD
11. Relief.
The said application for amendment was not objected to by the defendant-petitioners nor any objection was raised to the framing of additional issues in view of the consent given by the defendant-petitioners. Both the applications were allowed subject to payment of costs. The trial Court passed the following order on 1.3.2005 which reads as under:
That on the basis of the above statement on 1.3.2000, both the applications fil