Supreme Court: State Must Be Impleaded When Relief is Sought From Public Exchequer  ||  SC: Student Fees Cannot Be Increased Mid-Course Except in Exceptional Circumstances  ||  Supreme Court: ED's Delay in Sending Arrest Order Does Not By Itself Invalidate Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Appeal Limitation Runs From NCLAT Order Pronouncement, Not Certified Copy Receipt  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Tribunal Has No Supervisory Authority Over Waqf Board  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Aadhaar Fingerprint Comparison to Trace Sreekrishnapuram Murder Culprits  ||  Delhi High Court: Unnatural Death at Police Station Alone Cannot Establish Police Negligence  ||  Orissa High Court: Teacher Scolding Student for Intoxicant Use is Not Suicide Abetment  ||  Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights    

Amaara Dalmia and Ors. Vs. Mridula Dalmia and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 DHC 4209) - (High Court of Delhi) (20 May 2024)

Applications for amendment of pleadings ought to be rejected, if the amendments change the fundamental character of the suit

MANU/DE/3560/2024

Civil

In facts of present case, an application has been filed on behalf of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 seeking amendment of their plaint. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for Partition and Rendition of the assets of the Defendant No. 2 HUF in 2017.

Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3, by way of these amendments, is trying to include shares owned by the Defendant No. 2 HUF which were allegedly alienated by the Karta/ Defendant No. 2 before the institution of the present suit i.e. from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2011.

In the case of Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. vs. Manjunath and Others, the Supreme Court has explained that the right of the Karta to alienate Joint Hindu Family property for fulfilling legal necessities such as payment of government revenues, maintenance of coparceners, conducting marriage and religious functions, payment of debts, acting for the benefit of the estate, etc. is settled and is beyond cavil based on the several judgments of this Court.

Therefore, even if it is assumed that,Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 only recently came to know about the transfer of shares belonging to the Defendant no. 2 HUF by the Karta/ Defendant No. 3, the only remedy available with them is to seek cancellation of the transfer of shares. However, introducing fresh pleas and reliefs, apropos the shares already alienated before the institution of the present case, would enlarge the scope of the suit.The Apex Court in M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (Dead) by legal representatives and others, held that applications for amendment of pleadings ought to be rejected if the amendments change the fundamental character of the suit.

In a suit for Partition and Possession, if a relief of Declaration is being sought by way of an amendment, such an amendment would be impermissible as it would change the nature of the suit as held in the case of Basavaraj vs. Indira.Moreover, the Plaintiff could only claim partition of the assets of the HUF as held on the date of institution of the suit. Therefore, the amendments to the plaint sought by plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be permitted. The application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is accordingly dismissed.

Tags : AMENDMENT   PLEADING   PERMISSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved