NCLAT: Security to Become Part of Liquidation Estate if Creditor Fails to Deposit Amount in 90 Days  ||  NCLAT: To Reject Application u/s 9 of IBC Reflection of Genuine Pre Existing Dispute Sufficient  ||  NCLAT: Can’t Terminate Lease Hold Rights in Favor of CD During Moratorium Period  ||  NCLT Kochi: As Per IBBI Regulations, Replaced Liquidator Entitled to Minimum 2 Lakh Rupees  ||  Del. HC: Participation in Arbitral Proc. Doesn’t Imply Acceptance of Arbitrator’s Unilateral Appoin.  ||  P&H HC: Measured Legal Response Necessitates Vigilance at Point of Entry  ||  Ker. HC: There is No Personal Law in India Applicable to Christians Recognizing Adoption  ||  SC: Protection under TP Act Not Available to if Party Knew about Pending Litigation  ||  Supreme Court: BCI Has No Authority to Interfere with Legal Education  ||  SC: Party Having No Privity of Contract with Service Provider Can’t be Called ‘Consumer’ under CP Act    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved