$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 40/2024 & I.A. 1036/2024 SONIA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Aakash Pathak, Adv.

versus SMT. DAYA KAUR & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Mohammad Ali, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Gupta, Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta and Ms. Pushpa Singh, Advs.

for D-1 and D-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026 I.A. 16433/2025 (under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint. The plaintiff is wife of Late Fateh Singh, who was the son of Late Khachedu Ram, who owned two suit properties.

2. Mr. Aakash Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff submits that the present suit has been filed seeking partition and permanent injunction of said two suit properties as detailed in the plaint.

3. He contends that in the written statement filed by the defendants, a Will dated 20.05.2015 allegedly executed by the late husband of the plaintiff namely, late Fateh Singh has been set up by the defendants, which has necessitated the filing of present application. It is the case of the defendants that by way of his said Will Late Fateh Singh had bequeathed all his share in one of the suit properties in favour of his mother, i.e., defendant no.1 (Smt.

Daya Kaur).

4. He submits that by way of present application plaintiff seeks to challenge the Will dated 20.05.2015 allegedly executed by late Fateh Singh and accordingly, the plaintiff seeks to insert the prayer for declaration challenging the said Will. Besides that, the plaintiff has also sought other incidental amendments in the plaint.

5. The reply to the present application has not been filed by the defendants/non-applicants despite opportunity having been granted.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the amendments sought by the plaintiff is necessary for determination of real question and controversy, in as much as, the dispute in the present suit is with regard to the inheritance of the estate left behind by Late Khachedu Ram, father-in-law of the plaintiff.

7. The claim of the plaintiff is that her deceased husband inherited share in both the suit properties whereas, the case set up by the defendants is that late husband of the plaintiff had executed a will dated 20.05.2015, whereby he bequeathed his share in one of the suit properties in favour of his mother i.e. defendant no.1/Smt. Daya Kaur, since deceased. Therefore, the issue with regard to the share of the plaintiff in one of the suit properties can be determined only after examining the validity of the will dated 20.05.2015 allegedly executed by Late Fateh Singh, and propounded by the defendants in their written statement.

8. Hence, the prayer sought to be inserted in the amended plaint to the effect that the will dated 20.05.2015 allegedly executed by Late Fateh Singh is null and void and having no value in the eyes of law, will surely not change the nature of the suit but would rather, avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

9. At this stage, reference may advantageously be made to a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Beena Sharma & Anr. vs. Sarla Paul & Ors.2016 SCC OnLine Del 1481, wherein this court when confronted with the question as to whether amendment can be allowed to seek declaration that the Will discovered subsequent to the filing of the written statement by the defendants therein is null and void, held as under:

“20. Given the averments made, it is not the case of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, despite notifying the date of the Will as March 25, 1998, no reference was made by the plaintiff to the said Will in the plaint. The plaintiff did make a reference to the Will dated March 25, 1998. The plea of Mr. Malhotra that the plaintiff despite asking the copies of the Will and the gift from the defendant No. 1, and failure of the defendant No. 1 to supply the same and in the absence of a physical copy, there was no occa