R. Narsimha Reddy Vs. Rondla Narsi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.
EmailCivil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 6, Rule 17 – Amendment – Suit for partition – Defendant bringing a document to show previous partition – Proposed amendment claiming it to be sham – At the same time, plaintiff taking contrary stand that he was ready and willing to pay as per document. Held that amendment was rightly rejected and there is nothing to interfere.
(Para 3)
So far as the second part of the proposed amendment in paragraph 5(A) is concerned, it is to the effect that the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay to defendant no.1 and 2, Rs. 1,500/- as contemplated under the said deed of partition. This averment is contrary to the entire stand of the plaintiff and is rightly held to be inconsistent and could not have been relied upon in these proceedings as the document is of 1974 while the suit is filed in 1993. Therefore, there was no question of relying upon the averment in the document in favour of the plaintiff when the plaintiff himself says that the document is invalid.
(Para 4)
1. The short question posed for our consideration by the petitioner-plaintiff in a suit for partition is to the effect whether paragraph 5(A) which was sought to be added in the plaint and which was permitted to be amended by the trial court could have been refused to be introduced in the plaint by amendment, by the impugned judgment of the High Court.
2. It has to be kept in view that as per the plaint, there was no previous partition of properties. A document dated 24th April, 1974, was sought to be produced by the respondent-defendants to show that there was an earlier partition. That document being unregistered was ultimately impounded and additional stamp duty was paid. That is how the document is on the record. In that light the proposed amendment was sought to be made.
3. When we turn to the proposed amendment it recites that there was no earlier partition and the said document was sham and bogus and was also not signed. In support of that the first part of paragraph 5(A), sought to be introduced, tries to aver about the relevant evidence in this connection. So far as that is concerned in the impugned judgment itself the High Court has given liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence and take all possible pleas in connection with admissibility of the document as well as about the subsequent events, how the document is to be interpreted and considered.
4. So far as the second part of the proposed amendment in paragraph 5(A) is concerned, it is to the effect that the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay to defendant no.1 and 2, Rs. 1,500/- as contemplated under the said deed of partition. This averment is contrary to the entire stand of the plaintiff and is rightly held to be inconsistent and could not have been relied upon in these proceedings as the document is of 1974 while the suit is filed in 1993. Therefore, there was no question of relying upon the averment in the document in favour of the plaintiff when the plaintiff himself says that the document is invalid. Consequently, no case is made out for our interference.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner voiced an apprehension that though in the absence of relevant averments in the plaint comprised in the first part of paragraph (5A), he may not be able to lead evidence. This apprehension is misconceived as the High Court has already given liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence and the respondents have accepted the order of the High Court. Therefore, the defence of absence of relevant averments on this aspect for assailing the document cannot be urged by the respondents as they have accepted the order of the High Court. In short, such evidence will remain permissible to be led by the petitioner at the stage of trial.
6. In the result, the special leave petition fails and stands dismissed. No costs.
