An applicant can amend a plaint to challenge a settlement deed if it concerns coparcenary rights, to ensure equitable trial outcomes.

COMMON ORDER

This Application in A.No.2069 of 2025 had been filed to permit the applicant to amend the plaint as mentioned schedule of amendment.

2.The Application in O.A.No.193 of 2025 had been filed to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his men, agent or anybody claiming through, and or on behalf of them respondent/defendant for alienating, leasing mortgaging or in any other manner dealing with the applicants ½ share of the schedule mentioned property.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the property originally belongs to a Hindu undivided family of which the father of the petitioner was allotted shares and was held by him. Since the said property is an ancestral property which came into the hands of the father of the parties, on the birth of the parties, they have become Coparceners in the property. According to the applicant, the father had died intestate and the applicant gets the share in the property. He would submit that on the written statement being filed, it had come to the knowledge of the applicant that the father had executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendant and hence, he had sought for amendment of the plaint to challenge the said settlement deed. He would submit that the father did not have absolute interest in the property, since on the birth of the applicant, the applicant becomes a Coparceners in the property and therefore, the settlement executed by the father is a void settlement. Therefore, he seeks amendment of the plaint to include the relief of declaration.

4.He would further submit that from the statement made by the respondent, the respondent claims the property to be his own on the strength of the settlement deed and if he is allowed to deal with the property, it would definitely affect the interest of the applicant and therefore, he would seek injunction. In support of his contentions with regard to the coparcenery rights, he had relied upon various judgments in the cases ofRohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh & Ors., reported in(2013) 9 SCC 419 ; M.Krishnamoorthy vs. K.Pondeepankar & Ors., reported in2017 (3) CTC 170; S.Sampoornam vs. C.K.Shanmugam & Ors made in S.A.No.729 of 2016, dated 05.04.2022; andVasumathi & Anr., vs. R.Vasudevan & Ors., made in S.A.No.527 of 2022, dated 08.11.2024.

5. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the concept of Joint Hindu undivided family and a Coparcenary right in the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. He would submit that the property was originally, part of a Hindu undivided family, which had entered into a partition under which the Suit Schedule Property had come into the hands of the father of the parties. After the partition of the assets, the family ceases to be Joint Hindu Coparcenary family and the property vests absolutely in their father. Therefore, the claim of the applicant that the property continued to be a Hindu undivided family property and the applicant has a Coparcenary right in the property, is a fallacy. Since the father of the parties had executed a settlement deed absolutely in favour of the respondent, the respondent is entitled to deal with the property. That apart, he would submit that since the father had an absolute right in the property, there is no legal impediment for settling the property in favour of the respondent and there was no necessity to allow the amendment as prayed for. In support of his submissions, he had relied upon various judgments particularly reported inVineeta Sharma vs.