Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Pitta Samadana Swarooparani and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Pitta Kumari and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.67 of 2025
Decided on 5.3.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 petition for amendment could not be a ground to deny amendment – Procedural aspect cannot override substantial part.

Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 – Amendment of plaint – Partition suit – In a suit for partition, plaintiff has ordinarily to include all properties – Law looks with disfavour upon properties being partitioned partially – Their correct extent is also to be mentioned – It is so, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that all properties, in case of plaintiffs’ success in proving case for partition, be available for equitable distribution – At stage of amendment, merits or correctness of plea sought to be added is not required to be gone into and amendment application is to be considered and decided as per Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – If some properties could not be included and plaintiffs sought to include such properties by way of amendment at stage of trial, Trial Court did not commit any illegality in allowing amendment application. (Paras 13 and 15)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 – Amendment of plaint – Partition suit – Mere delay in filing petition for amendment could not be a ground to deny amendment – Plaintiff in a partition suit many times may not be aware of all properties sought to be partitioned of common ancestral properties and if during pendency of case he acquired knowledge about some more properties which need to be partitioned or included in partition suit, amendment to add those properties cannot be refused on technical plea – Procedural aspect cannot override substantial part – In present case, finding of due diligence has been recorded in favour of plaintiff so as to allow amendment application – Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 18, 27, 28, 29 and 30)
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared through virtual mode.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants in the suit challenging the Order dated 08.11.2024 in I.A.No.1123 of 2024 in O.S.No.72 of 2015 passed by the learned Court of XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid, which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint in the suit for partition.

3. The respondents filed the suit for partition with respect to the plaint schedule five items in number, claiming 25 shares after division of the said properties into 49 full shares. The case of the plaintiffs was that the 1st plaintiff-Pitta Kumari was the mother of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4. The 1st plaintiff was married to Pitta Venkata Ratnam on 09.01.1974 as per Hindu religious rites and caste customs which prevailed in their community. While the marriage of the 1st plaintiff was subsisting with Venkata Ratnam, he married 1st defendant-Pitta Samadana Swarooparani. Defendants No.2 to 4 are the children from that marriage. Inter alia, it was claimed that joint family owned and possessed the properties as described in the plaint schedule, some of the properties were ancestral and some were acquired with ancestral nucleus. Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and defendants No.2 to 4 and Pitta Venkata Ratnam were having 1/7th equal share in the plaint schedule properties. Pitta Venkata Ratnam also died intestate and the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and defendants No.2 to 4 being class-I heirs were entitled to share equally. The 1st defendant was only proforma party and has no share. The defendants in spite of notice did not cooperate for partition and so the suit was filed.

4. The defendants/petitioners filed written statement, inter alia, denying the plaintiffs’ case. They submitted that the 1st plaintiff was not treated as legally wedded wife of Pitta Venkata Ratnam during his lifetime. The 1st defendant was legally wedded wife, their marriage was solemnized on 26.05.1975 as per the Christian religion, tradition and as per their caste custom prevailing in their community. The marriage with the 1st defendant was the first marriage. Inter alia, it was submitted that there were no properties in the hands of the defendants, as per the plaint averments. The extent of certain item of the schedule property was also disputed. The properties possessed by Pitta Venkata Ratnam during his lifetime were said to be his self-acquired properties and not ancestral properties in his hands. There was no ancestral nucleolus from the ancestral properties to purchase the plaint schedule properties by Pitta Venkata Ratnam. The notice sent by the plaintiffs was duly replied, denying the claim of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that there was no cause of action to file the suit. It deserved to be dismissed.

5. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1123 of 2024 for amendment of the plaint schedule properties so as to include some more properties and also to correct the extent of the properties item Nos.1 to 5, as mentioned in the plaint schedule. It was submitted that during the pendency of the suit, at the time of the trial, plaintiffs noticed that there were some more properties of Pitta Venkata Ramana, which could not be included and also that due to some mistake, typographical, the extent of the properties included in the plaint schedule was not correctly mentioned, and that such amendment would not change the nature of the suit and the defendants would not suffer any loss or hardship if the amendment was allowed.

6. The 3rd defendant filed counter, which was adopted by defendants No.2 and 4. They opposed the application. They submitted that the plaintiffs faced cross-examination as PWs 1 and 2 at length and after bringing out the real facts, the plaintiffs in order to cover up their lacunae filed amendment petition at the belated sta