Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Fateh Deep Singh, J.
Gurindesh Sandhu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Kirron Kher & Ors. – Respondents
CR No.3876 of 2019
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Amendment of Plaint - Inheritance Dispute - Order VI Rule 17 CPC, Section 151 CPC - 21.09.2007, 04.04.2012 - The court discussed the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC in the context of allowing the amendment of the plaint to challenge a will in an inheritance dispute. The court emphasized the need for comprehensive adjudication of disputes and the liberal interpretation of the rules to further the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over inheritance of Lt. Col. Thakar Singh's estate, involving a challenge to a transfer deed and a subsequent will. Plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to challenge the will, which was initially declined by the Court of Civil Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the amendment to challenge the will should be allowed to comprehensively adjudicate the dispute and shorten the litigation, safeguarding the parties' interests.
Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint to challenge the will in an inheritance dispute should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for comprehensive adjudication of disputes and the liberal interpretation of the rules to further the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the amendment of the plaint to challenge the will was allowed.
JUDGMENT
Fateh Deep Singh, J. - This invocation by way of revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has come about from petitioners numbering three, Gurindesh Sandhu and others whereby a challenge has been made to order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure P5) of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh by virtue of which their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint stood dismissed.
2. Heard Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners; Ms.Hemani Sarin, Advocate for respondents No.l and 2, and perused the records of the case.
3. It is over an estate of Lt. Col. Thakar Singh who happens to be father of three children namely Amardeep Singh (son) sincedeceased; Kirron Kher and Kanwaldeep Kaur alias Kanwal Thakar Singh (daughters) dispute had arisen. Admittedly, Lt. Col. Thakar Singh was owner of House No.65, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh and has since died on 08.11.2016 during the pendency of the civil suit in question which is for declaration to the effect that the transfer deed dated 21.09.2007 is illegal, null and void as well as consequential decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating l/3rd portion of the house in question.
4. During the course of pendency of the civil suit, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was moved by the plaintiff applicant seeking to amend the plaint that since defendants No.l and 2 have placed on record and relied upon a registered Will dated 04.04.2012 purported to have been executed by Lt. Col. Thakar Singh then respondent No.3 and which they termed to be an outcome of fraud, coercion and undue influence, illegal and void document and wanted to incorporate the same entitling them to seek declaration challenging the Will in question as well and which stood declined.
5. The admitted stance of the two sides is that the suit is pending and at the fag end of plaintiffs' evidence. The initial suit is over a challenge to transfer decree dated 21.09.2007 over the same very property which is subject matter of the will purported to have been set up by defendant Nos.l and 2 (present respondents). The claim ofplaintiffs initially was over the alleged transfer deed dated 21.09.2007 and during the pendency of the suit upon death of Lt. Col. Thakar Singh, respondents No.l and 2 had set up a registered Will dated 04.04.2012. It is also not displaced that Amardep Singh son of Lt. Col. Thakar Singh and brother of Kirron Kher and Kanwaldeep Kaur alias Kanwal Thakar Singh had passed away on 28.12.2003 and two children were born out of his wedlock with plaintiff Gurindesh Sandhu on 11.02.1991 and 28.12.1994 who happen to be plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Thus, a question over the very inheritance of Lt. Col. Thakar Singh, whose wives have pre-deceased him, is the primary subject matter of dispute.
6. Rather than putting the parties to another litigation in the light of the arguments put forth by Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate that since it is a subsequent cause of action that has arisen, the plaintiffs needs to file a fresh separate civil suit to lay challenge to the Will so set up by the respondents and has tried to cite 'Vijay Hathising Shah & another vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi & others' (2019) 5 SCC 360; 'Sham Kumar Kohli vs. Ashok Tandon & another' CR 614 of 2017 D/d 07.03.2017 Punjab & Haryana High Court; and 'Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K. Modi and others' (2006) 4 SCC 385 to bring about that there was no necessity of amendment of the plaint at this juncture as it would add to the lengthy litigation being set into motion and might even change the very nature of the suit; and to controvert it Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate learned counsel for thepetitioners has sought to cite 'Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K. Modi and others' (2006) 4 SCC 385 and 'Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu & another' 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 566 to bring about that it will curtail multiplicity of the litigation.
7. A
The need for comprehensive adjudication of disputes and the liberal interpretation of procedural rules to further the ends of justice.
The main legal point established is the liberal interpretation of the law on amending written statements to facilitate comprehensive adjudication and the once and for all settlement of disputes.
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
