Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings to Challenge Will in Property Dispute: Dinesh Goyal vs. Suman Agarwal (24 September 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 24 September 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 726

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a party amend their pleadings to challenge the validity of a will after the trial has already begun? This question was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of India in a case concerning a property dispute among siblings. The court had to decide whether the High Court was correct in allowing the amendment of the plaint to include a challenge to the will, which was the basis for the defendant’s claim to the entire property. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which amendments to pleadings can be allowed, even after the trial has commenced. The bench consisted of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a property in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, originally purchased by the father of the appellant and respondents. The appellant and respondents are siblings, children of Smt. Katoribai. After the father’s death, Smt. Katoribai, their mother, allegedly bequeathed the property to the appellant through a will dated 14th January 2013. She passed away on 5th March 2013. The respondents initially recognized the will through agreements dated 20th December and 28th December 2014, but later filed a suit claiming their share in the property, asserting it was their father’s property and they were entitled to a 1/5th share each.

The appellant, relying on the will, argued that the property belonged solely to him. The respondent, Smt. Suman Agarwal (Bindal), then sought to amend her plaint to include a challenge to the genuineness of the will and to include movable properties for partition. The trial court rejected this amendment application, but the High Court allowed it. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially rejected the respondent’s application to amend the plaint, stating that the proceedings were well underway and that the respondent had not demonstrated due diligence. The High Court, however, overturned this decision, observing that the genuineness of the will was crucial to the case and that the trial court had not framed an issue regarding the will’s validity. The High Court also noted that the cross-examination of the plaintiff had not yet begun, and therefore, the amendment should be allowed for complete justice.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the amendment of pleadings. The provision states:

“17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

This provision allows amendments at any stage, provided they are necessary to determine the real issues in the case. However, after the trial has commenced, amendments are only allowed if the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Defendant’s) Arguments:

• The amendment application was unduly delayed, as it was filed more than a year after the defendant’s written statement, which relied on the will, was submitted.
• The defendant denied any forgery or fabrication of the will and the agreements.
• The application was not based on any subsequent event but on facts already known to the plaintiff.
• The amendment was sought after the commencement of the trial and was therefore not maintainable. The appellant relied on the case of Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr. [ (2009) 2 SCC 409 ] in support of this contention.

Respondent’s (Plaintiff’s) Arguments:

• The respondent sought to add a challenge to the genuineness of the will, which was crucial to determining the rightful ownership of the property.
• The respondent also sought to include movable properties in the suit for partition.
• The respondent argued that the amendment was necessary to ensure a complete and just adjudication of the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the amendment to the plaint filed by the present respondents.

The Court also considered the following sub-issues while deciding the main issue:

• Whether determination of the genuineness of the Will is the necessary course of action in determining the issues between the parties.
• Whether the application was presented post the commencement of the trial, and if so, could it have been presented prior to such commencement despite due diligence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363]* to emphasize that amendments should be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and do not cause injustice.
• The Court used North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das [(2008) 8 SCC 511]* to highlight the principle that amendments should not cause injustice to the other side and should be necessary for determining the real issues.
• The Court followed the principles laid down in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128]* which outlines the conditions under which amendments should be allowed, emphasizing that amendments are necessary for effective adjudication and should not cause injustice.
• The Court distinguished Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr. [(2009) 2 SCC 409]*, which was relied upon by the appellant, by stating that the need to determine the genuineness of the will outweighed the delay in filing the amendment application.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a complete and just adjudication of the case. The Court emphasized that the genuineness of the will was central to the property dispute and that this issue needed to be resolved before the partition of the property could be determined. The Court also recognized that delaying the resolution of the will’s validity would lead to multiple litigations and would not serve the interests of justice.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the amendment was delayed and that the trial had commenced. However, it rejected this argument, stating that the need to determine the validity of the will was a more pressing concern. The Court reasoned that without resolving the issue of the will, the case could not be properly adjudicated, and this would lead to further delays and potential injustice. The Court also noted that the amendment was necessary to ensure that all relevant issues were addressed in the same suit, thus avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The limited question that arises for our consideration is whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the amendment to the plaint filed by the present respondents.”
• “The scope of the dispute before us is limited to a procedural aspect. In the larger scheme, this dispute pertains to succession. If there is a Will, it has to be honoured. If one of the parties , who will be affected by the Will coming into effect , challenges it on one ground or the other , the process of succession cannot go forward without determination of the dispute regarding the Will.”
• “Keeping in view the above, along with the fact that without determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible , we do not find any infirmity in the order of the High Court, allowing the amendment setting aside refusal of the Trial Court to grant such amendment.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, and both concurred with the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Amendments to pleadings can be allowed even after the trial has commenced if they are necessary to determine the real issues in the case.
• The need to determine the genuineness of a will can outweigh delays in filing amendment applications.
• Courts should adopt a liberal approach in considering amendment applications to ensure complete and just adjudication.
• The primary goal is to prevent multiplicity of litigation and resolve all issues in a single proceeding.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to decide all issues, including the genuineness of the will, expeditiously.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that amendments to pleadings, even after the commencement of trial, can be allowed if they are necessary to determine the real question in controversy, particularly when it involves the validity of a will in a succession case. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural rules should not hinder the pursuit of justice and that the courts should prioritize the resolution of substantive issues over technicalities. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but it emphasizes the importance of considering the necessity of the amendment over the delay in filing it when the amendment is crucial to the core issue of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to allow the amendment of the plaint. The Court emphasized that the genuineness of the will was a crucial issue that needed to be resolved before the property dispute could be settled. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that all relevant issues are addressed in a single proceeding to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure a just outcome.