9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Partition of property by metes and bounds, entitlement for partition and separate possession, amendment of written statement, adducing additional evidence for testamentary succession. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the partition of a property by metes and bounds among family members. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming two-thirds share in the property based on a registered Will executed by his grandfather. The court framed an issue to determine the plaintiff's entitlement for partition and separate possession. During the suit, the plaintiff sought to adduce additional evidence to prove testamentary succession through a registered Will dated 20.8.1994. The application for additional evidence was initially allowed by the Additional District Judge but was challenged by the defendant in the High Court. The High Court allowed the defendant's challenge, prompting the plaintiff to file an application seeking to amend the written statement to include a paragraph disputing the validity of the Will. The trial court initially dismissed the application for amendment, leading to an appeal by the defendant in the High Court, which was also dismissed. Both revisions were disposed of by the High Court through a common order. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of rules governing pleadings and leading of evidence to advance justice and avoid multiple litigations. It highlighted that amendments to pleadings should generally be allowed unless unjust or prejudicial to the opposing party. The court criticized the lower courts for rejecting the defendant's plea for amending the written statement, stating that the defendant should have the opportunity to challenge the validity of the disputed Will, which formed the basis of the suit. The Supreme Court further noted that the plaintiff should have been allowed to present additional evidence to prove testamentary succession, especially when the suit was based on the Will dated 20.8.1994. The court criticized the High Court for a rigid and technical approach in rejecting the plaintiff's request for additional evidence. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the lower court's orders. It directed the trial court to permit the defendant to amend the written statement and allow the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence to prove testamentary succession through the registered Will. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring fair opportunities for both parties to present their case and evidence in legal proceedings.
|
