Amendments to plaint in a partition suit do not constitute a change in the nature of the suit if they further pursue existing claims based on newly discovered information.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-defendant is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 24.08.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.4/2022 and 5/2022 in O.S.No.8697/2015.

2. Heard Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner is the defendant, the respondent is the plaintiff. A suit is filed seeking partition and separate possession claiming 1/3^rd share by the plaintiff on 25.11.2020. Written statement is preferred by the petitioner and pleaded execution of a registered Will and related documents. The Will is said to have come into effect on 17.03.2025 and later on a Gift Deed executed. Based on the said plaint and the written statement, issues are framed and the matter was set to trial. During the trial, an application is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and an additional prayer. The suit is for partition. Generally, when an application is preferred at the fag end of the trial seeking amendment of the plaint, this Court would not step in and allow such a process. The amendment now sought would in no way change the nature of the suit, as the amendment is for incorporation of a paragraph of fact and in furtherance of the said paragraph, the prayer reads as follows:

"4) Add following (b) and (c) prayer after prayer (a) in the prayer column, and renumber existing prayer (b) and (c) as (d) and (e) respectively.

(b) Hold that the Will dated 17-03-2015 bearing No. VJN- 3-00311-2014-15 registered at Sub-Registrar Rajajinagara (Vijayanagara) is not binding on plaintiff's share in suit schedule property.

(c) Hold that the gift deed dated 13-01-2015 bearing No.

RMN-1-08829-2014-15 registered at Sub-Registrar Ramanagara, Ramanagara district is not binding on plaintiff's share in suit schedule property.

5) Add in schedule "B" from the blank place of Site No. and delete the words "at Mysore Road, from Pinake Developpers, measuring north to south 30ft and east to west 40ft as follows"

No.131/47, Manchanayakanahalli Village, Manchanayakanahalli Grama Panchyath, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagar District, measuring East to West 18.288 Meters (60ft), North to South 12.192 meters (40 ft), bounded on East by : 40ft Road, West by : Narayanaswamy's Land, North by : Site No.131/48. South by : Site No.131/46.

6) Add Schedule 'C' after 'B' Schedule all the piece and portion of site to be allotted by the BDA in lieu of acquisition of revenue site bearing site No.25/1, house list No.144.56, measuring about east to west 70 ft and north to south 40+62/2, situated at Nuggalipalya village, Ullal, Mallattahalli Grama Panchayat, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District."

4. The concerned Court allows the said application in the peculiar facts of the case owing to the fact that it would not change the nature of the claim made by the plaintiff before the concerned Court. The order of the concerned Court allowing the application is based on the following reasons:

"4. Point No.1:- This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.4/2022 and 5/2022 stated that they came to know about the gift deed dated 13.01.2015 and Will dated 17.03.2015 with respect to suit schedule-A property only after filing of written statement by the defendant on 05.03.2016. The plaintiff submitted that after coming to know about the above said gift deed and Will he wanted to challenge the same by way of seeking amendment in the suit, but this Hon'ble Court orally directed the defendant to settle the issue and accordingly on 21.02.2017 the matter was referred to Mediation Centre and