Manju Gaind vs. Kamla Rani & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the amendment sought by respondent nos. 1 to 5 was permissible and did not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit or withdraw any admission to the prejudice of the appellant. Regarding properties at prayer clauses 1(f) and 1(q), the Court found that the amendment only substituted a heading, while the particulars, ownership, and comments remained unaltered. This change did not introduce a new cause of action or defence, nor did it negate any admitted position of fact. The Court reasoned that whether a mutation entry ultimately supports the appellant's claim remains a matter for trial, and the amendment did not prejudice this determination. For the property at prayer clause 1(g), the Court noted that the original written statement already identified Defendant No. 3 as the owner, and the amendment merely relocated the sub-paragraph to a more accurate heading. The Court found that no admission in favour of the appellant was withdrawn, as the written statement never substantively admitted her share in this specific property. The Court concluded that the original placement was an internal inconsistency, and correcting it was a bona fide correction of an error. The Court found no merit in the appellant's principal submission that the original averments were unequivocal admissions that could not be undone by amendment, as the factual position remained identical before and after the amendment, only the grouping heading changed. The Court also rejected the contention regarding the manner of allowing the amendment, stating that the enquiry should focus on bona fides and compensable prejudice. The appeal was found to be devoid of merit.

Facts

The appellant, Smt. Manju Gaind, filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts concerning properties of her deceased father, Sh. Krishan Lal. The respondents are the legal heirs. The appellant claimed a 1/7th share in all properties, regardless of whose name they were registered under. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed a written statement, including preliminary submissions detailing properties and stating that respondent no. 1 became the proprietor of "M/s Krishan Lal & Sons". Based on these averments, the appellant filed an application for a decree on admission. Subsequently, respondent nos. 1 to 5 sought to amend their written statement, claiming typographical errors in paragraphs 13 and 14. The amendment sought to change headings and relocate certain property descriptions. The learned Single Judge allowed the amendment application and disposed of the appellant's admission application as not pressed. The appellant appealed this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proposed amendment to the written statement, allowing the relocation of property details and alteration of headings, fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case, thereby prejudicing the appellant's claim for a 1/7th share? 2. Whether the original averments in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the written statement constituted unambiguous admissions of the appellant's 1/7th share, which could not be withdrawn or altered by a subsequent amendment? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the original averments in the written statement were clear admissions of her 1/7th share, creating substantive rights that could not be undone by an amendment. She contended that the amendment altered the substance of the written statement by removing a property from the category of shared properties and changing the heading from "Properties in Which the Plaintiff Has Received Share" to "Properties in which Mutation Entry has been made in name of Plaintiff", thereby reducing an admission of ownership to a mere reference to mutation entries. The appellant also argued that the impugned order lacked reasons for allowing the amendment, especially concerning vital rights. Contentions of the Revenue/State (Respondents): The respondents argued that the amendments were clarificatory and intended to correct typographical errors and internal inconsistencies. They contended that the substance of the entries regarding the properties remained unaltered, and the amendment did not withdraw any admission or introduce a new defence. They relied on the principles laid down in B.K. Narayana Pillai (supra) and Revajeetu Builders (supra) regarding amendments.