Usha Balashaheb Swami vs Kiran Appaso Swami

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 531

TARUN CHATTERJEE, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
Usha Balashaheb Swami – Appellant
Versus
Kiran Appaso Swami – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

What is the liberal approach to amendment of pleadings in written statements under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC? What are the permissible limits on withdrawing admissions or altering admissions through amendment of a written statement in partition disputes? What standards govern when a trial court's discretionary grant of amendment should be preserved or reversed on appeal under Article 227 or Section 115 CPC?

What is the liberal approach to amendment of pleadings in written statements under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC?

What are the permissible limits on withdrawing admissions or altering admissions through amendment of a written statement in partition disputes?

What standards govern when a trial court's discretionary grant of amendment should be preserved or reversed on appeal under Article 227 or Section 115 CPC?

JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd October 2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2390 of 2005 whereby the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur in Special Civil Suit No. 503 of 1996 was set aside.

3. The plaintiff, who is the respondent no. 1 in the present appeal, (hereinafter called the “plaintiff”) has instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties as fully described in Para 1 of the plaint on the allegations stated in brief as follows :-

4. The suit properties originally belonged to one Veersangayya (since deceased). On his death, Appasao (since deceased) and Balasao (since deceased) came to inherit the suit properties. The appellants who are defendants 8 to 14 in the suit are the heirs and legal representatives of Balasao (since deceased). The Plaintiff inherited one half share of the suit properties jointly with defendant nos. 1 to 7, on the death of Appasao. Since the appellants had refused to partition the suit properties and deliver separate possession, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and possession.

5. The defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. Most references are to the original case or to cases that cite it for legal principles, particularly the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami (2007) 5 SCC 602, which appears to be a frequently cited authority on amendments and procedural liberalism. There are no direct statements or phrases indicating that any case has been overruled or discredited in subsequent judgments within the provided data.

The majority of references (e.g., AIR 2007 SC 1663, (2007) 5 SCC 602, and various citations of Usha Balashaheb Swami) suggest that these cases are considered good law and are frequently cited to support legal principles, especially regarding the liberal approach towards amendments of pleadings and written statements. For example, multiple entries state that the Supreme Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra) has held certain principles, indicating continued judicial approval.

The case of Usha Balashaheb Swami (2007) 5 SCC 602 is repeatedly cited to establish legal principles, implying it remains a binding and authoritative decision.

Several references (e.g., in entries mentioning "the Court held," "the Supreme Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra) has held") reinforce that these cases are treated as good law and followed in subsequent rulings.

Some entries (e.g., references to "distinguished" or "laid down the principle") suggest that courts have distinguished the case in particular contexts but continue to treat the case as good law for the principles it originally laid down.

For instance, references to "distinguished between an application for amendment of the plaint and an application for amendment of written statement" indicate that the case's principles are still valid but applied with context-specific nuances.

Several references mention the case in passing or as part of a broader discussion but do not explicitly state whether the case has been overruled or criticized. For example, some entries state that the judgment was relied upon or followed without further commentary.

In some entries, the language suggests reliance but does not clarify if the case remains good law or if it has been questioned or limited in scope. For example, phrases like "the judgment of Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra) was followed" imply continued validity, but the absence of explicit overruling language leaves some ambiguity.

Based on the provided list, no cases are explicitly identified as overruled or bad law.

The case of Usha Balashaheb Swami (2007) 5 SCC 602 appears to be a cornerstone authority that continues to be cited and followed, indicating its treatment as good law.

Several references, such as "the judgment of Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra) was followed" or "reliance placed upon," do not specify if the case's treatment has been questioned or limited. These are treated as good law unless explicitly overruled.

The absence of explicit negative treatment or reversal in the provided data makes it difficult to identify any case as bad law with certainty.

Some entries mention that the case was distinguished or applied with nuances, but this does not necessarily indicate bad law—only that the case's principles are being applied flexibly.

Therefore, all references to Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra) are considered as treated as good law, but the treatment of some other cases remains uncertain due to lack of explicit commentary.