2007 (4) TMI 734 - SC - Indian Laws

Application seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 - Withdrawing admission made in written statement - Suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties - Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement? - HELD THAT - Considering the facts, it was not a case of withdrawal of the admission by the appellants by making the application for the amendment of the written statement but in fact such admission was kept intact and only a proviso has been added. This, in our view, is permissible in law and the question of withdrawing the admission made in para 8 in its entirety in the facts as noted herein above, therefore, cannot arise at all. Since we have already held that in the case of amendment of a written statement, the defendant is entitled to take new defence and also to plead inconsistent stand and in view of our discussions made herein above that by making the application for amendment of the written statement, admission was not at all withdrawn by the appellants nor a totally inconsistent plea was taken by the appellants in their application for amendment of the written statement, the High Court had failed to appreciate that by the proposed amendment, the appellants were not withdrawing their admission in respect of the half share in the ancestral property rather they only added that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 8 could be entitled to such share if they proved to be the legitimate children of Appasao (since deceased) who was entitled to half share in the property of late Veersangayya. That apart, it appears from the record that the written statement filed by the appellants was before the death of defendant No. 1 (first wife of Appasao). After the death of defendant No. 1, when plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 8 claimed themselves as heirs and legal representatives of defendant No. 1, the appellants sought amendment of the written statement challenging the legitimacy of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 8. In view of the discussions made herein above, we do not think that it was impermissible in law for the appellants to seek amendment of the written statement in the manner it was sought for. Therefore, it was neither a case of withdrawal of admission made in the written statement nor a case of washing out admission made by the appellant in the written statement. As noted herein earlier, by such amendment the appellant had kept the admissions intact and only added certain additional facts which need to be proved by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to 8 to get shares in the suit properties alleged to have been admitted by the appellants in their written statement. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellants are only raising an issue regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 7 to inherit the suit properties as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Appasao. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in reversing the order of the trial court and rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court rejecting the prayer for amendment of the written statement is set aside. The application for amendment of the written statement thus stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants could amend their written statement to introduce new facts and challenge the legitimacy of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7.
2. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement by the appellants.
3. Applicability of legal principles regarding the amendment of pleadings, especially concerning admissions in written statements.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Amendment of Written Statement
The appellants sought to amend their written statement to introduce the claim that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 were illegitimate children of the deceased Appasao and thus could not inherit the suit properties. Initially, the Civil Judge allowed this amendment, but the High Court later set it aside, reasoning that it would displace the plaintiff's case and cause irretrievable prejudice.

Issue 2: High Court's Rejection of Amendment
The High Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co., asserting that admissions in a written statement could not be withdrawn through amendments as it would completely alter the case of the plaintiff. The High Court also referred to Heera Lal v. Kalyan Mal and Ors., emphasizing that allowing such an amendment would prejudice the plaintiff's right to a partition decree.

Issue 3: Legal Principles on Amendment of Pleadings
The Supreme Court analyzed the principles under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows amendments to pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy. The Court noted that while amendments should generally be allowed liberally, they should not cause serious injustice or irreparable loss to the other party. The Court distinguished between amendments to plaints and written statements, stating that the latter could include new grounds of defense or inconsistent pleas without necessarily causing prejudice to the other party.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in rejecting the amendment application. The Court emphasized that the appellants did not withdraw their admission regarding the plaintiff's share in the property but added a proviso requiring the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 to prove their legitimacy. The Court held that such an amendment was permissible and did not amount to withdrawing an admission or causing irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The Court reiterated that the principles of law and material on record supported the trial court's discretion in allowing the amendment.

Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order rejecting the amendment was set aside. The application for amendment of the written statement was allowed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the suit's resolution. There was no order as to costs.