Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, J
MEHIMA NANDA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
AMRITPAL NANDA & ORS. – Respondent
I.A. 29536/2024
An amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to challenge documents introduced in the written statement should be allowed if necessary for effective adjudication, especially when the issue of limitation regarding the knowledge of such documents constitutes a disputed question of fact triable in full proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Suit for partition - Plaintiffs sought to incorporate challenge to a Sale Deed and an unregistered Will surfacing for the first time in Written Statement - Amendment necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - Court should adopt a liberal approach before trial - No prejudice caused to defendants as they retain right to raise limitation as a defense at trial. (Paras 17, 18, 27-30)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59 - Suit for cancellation of documents - Limitation period commences from the date of knowledge of the document - Application for amendment cannot be rejected at the threshold on ground of limitation when the inception of knowledge is a triable issue of fact. (Paras 19, 34-36)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs (widow and minor daughter of the deceased) filed a suit for partition of the estate of the deceased. During the proceedings, the defendants (deceased’s mother and other relatives) filed a written statement relying on a 2007 Sale Deed and an unregistered 2021 Will to claim the deceased had no ownership rights. The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to challenge these documents as null and void. The defendants opposed this, arguing the amendments changed the nature of the suit and were time-barred.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the amendments were necessary for complete adjudication and did not alter the core nature of the partition suit. Given the nascent stage of the proceedings, the court allowed the applications, observing that the question of limitation regarding the knowledge of these documents is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined during trial.
Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint to challenge the Sale Deed and Will should be permitted and whether the proposed amendments were barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment seeking to challenge documents propounded in a written statement is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC if it aids in the effective determination of the real controversy, and a plea of limitation regarding such documents is a triable issue that cannot lead to the rejection of an amendment at the threshold.
Result: Application allowed.
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
I.A. 29536/2024 (Under Order VI Rule 17, CPC
1. This application has been filed under Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint filed for partition of the estate of Late Shri Sukhpreet Singh Nanda, husband of plaintiff no.1 (‘deceased’)
Factual Background
2. As per plaintiff no.1 (‘P1’), her husband died intestate on 3rd May 2021, owing to COVID-19. Plaintiff no.2 (‘P2’) is the minor daughter of P1 and the deceased, currently aged about 4.5 years (born on 3rd November 2020). P1 and the deceased’s marriage was solemnised on 2nd April 2010, as per Sikh rites. Defendant no.1 (‘D1’) is the deceased’s mother; defendant no.2 (‘D2’) is the deceased’s brother, defendant nos.3 (‘D3’), 4 (‘D4’), and 5 (‘D5’) are D2’s wife, son, and daughter respectively. Defendant nos. 6 to 9 are various financial organizations/entities which may not be relevant for disposing of this application.
3. P1 contended that pursuant to the demise of her husband during the pandemic, D1 to D5 concealed the death from P1 and cut all ties with the plaintiffs. As per P1, stand taken by defendant nos. 1 to 5 was inimical to the plaintiffs and she stated that she has no relation with the family and would not get any share of the movable or immovable properties. P1 claims that she was threatened that if she relinquishes her rights, only then would she be able to take ornaments, stridhan, jewellery, documents, and other articles.
4. The immovable property in question is house bearing no. D-33 South Extension- II, New Delhi-110049 (‘the said property’). As per a family settlement, the deceased had ½ share in the said immovable property. Accordingly, by intestate succession, 2/3rd of the deceased’s share would devolve on the plaintiffs by virtue of them being Class-I legal heirs of the deceased.
5. There were other immovable properties viz. a plot at Dehradun, a plot at Bhiwadi, and a plot at Shahpura of which the plaintiffs did not have any further information. In this context, a decree of partition was sought for declaring plaintiffs to be entitled to an appropriate share in the said properties, for rendition of accounts, injunction, and other attendant reliefs.
6. Written statement was filed by D1 to 5, where they pleaded that the said property was sold through a Sale Deed dated 29th June 2007 by the deceased along with D2 and D3, to Phobos Trading Pvt. Ltd (‘Phobos’)
7. It was also stated that the sale was accepted by the deceased and was never challenged by any of the vendors. At the time of his demise, the deceased had no ownership rights in the said property. Accordingly, no share would devolve on the legal heirs.
Submissions by Plaintiffs’ Counsel
8. In addition to the above, an assertion was made in the written statement that certain debentures, held in favour of the deceased, had devolved through an unregistered Will dated 15th February 2021 in favour of D2.
9. Confronted with this in the written statement, the plaintiffs moved this application contending that both the Sale Deed regarding the said property as well as the unregistered Will were false and fabricated and should be declared null and void.
10. Accordingly, new paragraphs were sought to be added in the plaint in this regard, in particular, additions of paras 13A-13F to the plaint, as well as 29A, 31A-31B and additional plea seeking a declaration of the Sale Deed dated 29th June 2007 and the unregistered Will dated 15th February 2021 to be declared as null and void.
Submissions by Defendants’ Counsel
11.Counsel for the defendant raised the following objections –firstlythat the said amendment alters the very nature of the suit and therefore cannot be permitted;secondly, Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’) would prohibit entertaining this plea of the plaintiffs since seeking cancellation of both the documents would be barred by limitation;thirdly, without prejudice to the other submissions, the vendee of the said property being
