Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 454
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Jhanji, J.
Gurdial Singh
Versus
Gurdev Singh
Civil Revisions No. 1566 of 1990,
Decided On : MAY 1, 1991
A legal representative can only continue the suit and cannot make claims to which the original plaintiff was not entitled, but the court may allow amendments to the plaint in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Headnote:
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - SCOPE OF AMENDMENT - LIMITATION - ADOPTION - WILL - EXECUTION AND VALIDITY - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - ISSUES - FRAMING OF ISSUES - DISCRETION OF COURT - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, Gurdev Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of property, claiming to be the sole heir and legal representative of Bhagwan Kaur, the original owner. During the pendency of the suit, Bhagwan Kaur died, and Gurdev Singh was impleaded as her legal representative. He later sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer for possession and to assert his claim as the adopted son of Randhir Singh and Bhagwan Kaur, based on Wills executed in his favor. The defendants objected to the amendment, arguing that it was barred by limitation and that Gurdev Singh, as a legal representative, could only raise claims that the deceased plaintiff could have raised.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the legal representative has the right to continue the suit but cannot make claims to which the original plaintiff was not entitled. However, in this case, the defendants had not objected to the framing of an issue regarding the execution and validity of the Wills by Randhir Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favor of Gurdev Singh. They had also led evidence on this issue, and the trial court had returned a finding in favor of Gurdev Singh. Therefore, allowing Gurdev Singh to amend his plaint to include this claim would not cause any prejudice to the defendants and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether a legal representative can make claims to which the original plaintiff was not entitled? 2. Whether the amendment of the plaint was barred by limitation? 3. Whether Gurdev Singh could assert his claim as the adopted son of Randhir Singh and Bhagwan Kaur, based on Wills executed in his favor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A legal representative can only continue the suit and cannot make claims to which the original plaintiff was not entitled. 2. The amendment of the plaint was not barred by limitation as evidence on the proposed amendment had already come on the record and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. 3. Gurdev Singh could assert his claim as the adopted son of Randhir Singh and Bhagwan Kaur, based on Wills executed in his favor, as the defendants had not objected to the framing of an issue regarding the execution and validity of the Wills and had led evidence on this issue.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendants' revision petitions and allowed Gurdev Singh to amend his plaint. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
1. This order of mine will dispose Civil Revisions Nos.1566 and 2114 of 1990.
2. The suit property was originally owned by one Kartar Singh son of Ganda Singh. After his death, property came to his widow Kartar Kaur. Upon her death, Randhir Singh son of Ganda Singh, her sole heir and legal representative being the brother of her husband became the owner of the property and on the death of Randhir Singh, Bhagwan Kaur his widow filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is exclusive owner of 1/2 share (originally which belonged to Kartar Kaur widow of Kartar Singh) and for permanent injunction restraining defendant Gurdev Singh and Sarabjit Singh from alienating the property in suit. Defendant No. 1 set up a Will alleged to have been executed by Kartar Kaur in their favour. During the pendency of the suit, Bhagwan Kaur died and an application was made by Gurdev Singh (now plaintiff) for impleading himself as the sole heir and legal representative of Bhagwan Kaur. On his application, he was allowed to be impleaded in place of Bhagwan Kaur.
3. On 20-9-1982 Gurdev Singh plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint so as to include the prayer of possession of the suit property as he alleged that during the pendency of the suit, defendants have forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the property in suit. The amendment was allowed to include the prayer of possession.
4. On 29-5-1985 the suit was decreed in favour of Gurdev Singh. Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed appeal before the first appellate Court. During the pendency of appeal an objection was taken that the trial Court has not framed certain issues which were very vital for the decision of the suit. On the application of the defendants, the first appellate Court framed as many as six issues and one of the issues was-
"Whether Randhir Singh and Bhagwan Kaur made any valid Will bequeathing their property to Gurdev Singh? OPP"
5. A report was called from the trial Court on the said issue. The trial Court, after giving opportunity to lead evidence to the parties, submitted the report to the first appellate Court. The aforesaid issue was decided in favour of Gurdev Singh.
6. After the report was received by the first appellate Court, another application was filed by plaintiff, Gurdev Singh to amend the plaint so as to take up the plea that he is not only the adopted son of Randhir Singh and Bhagwan Kaur, Randhir Singh and Bhagwan Kaur executed Wills dated 14-9-1973 and 24-9-1979 respectively in his favour. He further stated that in the application, evidence has already been recorded on the proposed plea and issue was also framed by the first appellate Court. Finding on the same has been returned in his favour. His prayer was that the said plea is necessary for just and proper decision of the case and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The said application was contested by the defendants and the first appellate Court has allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to amend his pleadings. The objection of the defendants as to whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation was kept open. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have impugned the order of the first appellate Court whereby plaintiff was allowed to amend his plaint and have filed separate revisions.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants have challenged the order of the first appellate Court on two counts; (1) that the suit was originally filed by Bhagwan Kaur and Gurdev Singh was only her legal representative and legal representative could raise only such objection as the deceased would have raised i.e. the plaintiff is confined to the pleadings and the case of the deceased plaintiff. In support of this proposition, they have relied upon :-
(1) J. C. Chatterjee V/s. S. K. Tandon, AIR 1972 SC 2526; (2) Dareppa Alagouda V/s. Mallappa Shivalingappa, AIR 1947 Bom 307; (3) Jaiprakash V/s. Lilabai, AIR 196
