Supreme Court clarifies rules for amending written statements in property disputes: Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly (2008)

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2008

Judges: S.B. Sinha, J., V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

Can a party be allowed to amend their written statement to retract admissions made earlier? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute arising from a will. The court examined the circumstances under which such amendments can be permitted, especially when one of the parties attempts to resile from previous admissions.

Case Background

The case revolves around a will executed by one Shanti Sarup. Respondents 1, 2, 3, and 6 are his daughters, and Respondent No. 7, Ritu Sarup, is the daughter of Respondent No. 2. Ritu Sarup became handicapped due to an accidental fall.

On or about September 23, 1999, Shanti Sarup executed a will bequeathing his properties in equal shares to the appellant, Gautam Sarup, and Ritu Sarup. The appellant subsequently filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, seeking a declaration of his title to the suit properties and a permanent injunction.

Respondent No. 6, Leela Jetly, initially appeared through an advocate, Shri M.P. Vasudeva, and filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint. However, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a counterclaim and, in their written statement, did not deny or dispute the execution of the will by Shanti Sarup.

Later, Respondent No. 6 filed another written statement denying and disputing the appellant’s claims entirely. She also applied on August 28, 2000, to remove the first written statement from the record, claiming she had not engaged Shri M.P. Vasudeva and that the signatures on the initial written statement were not hers. The Trial Judge allowed this application.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a revision petition against the Trial Judge’s decision to allow Respondent No. 6 to remove her initial written statement. The High Court, in its judgment and order dated March 15, 2002, set aside the Trial Judge’s order dated September 12, 2001. It directed the Trial Judge to conduct an inquiry to determine whether Respondent No. 6 had engaged Mr. Vasudeva as her advocate or signed the written statement.

The High Court stated:

“Of course, I am not depriving Smt. Jetly to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in case the findings are given against Smt. Leela Jetly regarding filing of earlier statement.”

Following this directive, an inquiry was conducted, which concluded that Respondent No. 6 had indeed appointed Shri Vasudeva as her lawyer and filed her written statement on March 30, 2000. Respondent No. 6 filed a revision application against this finding, but the High Court dismissed it on April 7, 2004.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 6 applied for an amendment on November 5, 2004, which the Trial Court allowed on February 23, 2005. The appellant then moved the High Court, which dismissed the revision petition, stating:

“Thus, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not prejudiced in any manner while allowing defendant No. 6 to amend the written statement. The burden of proving the Will is to be discharged by the plaintiff in any case. Whether admissions contained in the written statement dated 30.3.2000 were relevant for proof of Will or such admissions were made erroneously or under mistaken belief or misrepresentation or such admissions are conclusive, are the questions which can be decided only after defendant No. 6 is permitted to amend the written statement. It is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided at the stage of deciding the application for amendment of written statement whether admissions in the written statement dated 30.3.2000 are conclusive and binding on defendant No. 6 and to what extent.”

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at issue in this case is Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This rule governs the amendment of pleadings, which includes the written statements filed by defendants in a lawsuit. The rule 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 is spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

This provision allows courts to permit amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided that such amendments are just and necessary for determining the real issues in the case. However, it also includes a proviso that restricts amendments after the trial has commenced, unless the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Mr. Sudhir Chandra):

• ✓ Respondent No. 6 should not be allowed to retract from the admissions made in her written statement filed on March 30, 2000.
• ✓ Having failed to establish that she did not engage Shri Vasudeva as her lawyer or sign the written statement, she should not be permitted to amend the written statement, especially since she is an attesting witness to the will and claimed a benefit under it.

Arguments by the Respondent (Mr. M.L. Verma):

• ✓ Admissions are evidence against the person making them, but the onus is on that person to show that the admission was made under some mistake or otherwise. Therefore, amending the written statement is permissible.
• ✓ Apart from Respondent No. 6, six other defendants have denied or disputed the correctness of the will, leading to the framing of an issue. Thus, whether she made any admission in her first written statement is academic.
• ✓ Although a person making an admission should not ordinarily be permitted to resile from it, there is no bar to explaining or clarifying such an admission. Therefore, the portion of the amendment application that seeks to explain or clarify the admission should be permitted.

Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether Respondent No. 6 could be permitted to amend her written statement, given the admissions contained in her initial written statement filed on March 30, 2000.
2. Whether Respondent No. 6, having failed to prove that she did not engage Shri Vasudeva as her lawyer or sign the initial written statement, should be allowed to amend the written statement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered several authorities to address the issues at hand:

1. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act: This section pertains to the fact that things admitted need not be proved.
2. Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This rule provides that even a vague or evasive denial may be treated as an admission, allowing the court to pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
3. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This rule allows a suit to be decreed on admission.
4. State of Haryana & Ors. v. M.P. Mohla [(2007) 1 SCC 457] Supreme Court: The Court stated that while a party may not be permitted to resile from his admission at a subsequent stage, an admission made contrary to law is not binding on the State.
5. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co. [(1976) 4 SCC 320] Supreme Court: The Court held that amendments seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from admissions made by the defendants in the written statement should not be allowed, as they would irretrievably prejudice the plaintiff.
6. Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay & Anr. [1984 Supp. SCC 594] Supreme Court: This case stated that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or explained away.
7. Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa & Anr. [1995 Supp.(2) SCC 303] Supreme Court: The Court observed that even an admission can be explained, and inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings.
8. Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary [1995 Supp. (3) 179] Supreme Court
9. Heera lal v. Kalyan Mal & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 278] Supreme Court: The Court followed the Modi Spinning decision, holding that amendments that displace the plaintiff’s case should not be allowed. It also noted that the Akshaya Restaurant decision was rendered per incuriam.
10. Sangramsinh P. Gaekwar & Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2005) 11 SCC 314] Supreme Court: The Court reiterated that admissions are admissible against the party making them and that judicial admissions can form the foundation of the rights of the parties.
11. Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(2005) 12 SCC 1] Supreme Court: The Court held that before an amendment is carried out, the court must consider whether the claimant intends to resile from an express admission.
12. Punjab National Bank v. Indian Bank & Anr. [(2003) 6 SCC 79] Supreme Court: The Court opined that an amendment may be allowed to clarify the relief prayed for, particularly when no prejudice would be caused to the other party.
13. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 385] Supreme Court: The Court emphasized that amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
14. Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 602] Supreme Court: The Court observed that the amendment was neither a withdrawal of admission nor a washing out of admission, but rather an addition of certain additional facts.
15. Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy & Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 115] Supreme Court: The Court held that Rules governing pleadings and leading of evidence have been incorporated to advance the interests of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Treatment of Authorities by the Court

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from, although it may be explained or clarified in certain cases. The Court emphasized that Respondent No. 6’s attempt to resile from her admission was not justified, especially given her failure to prove that she did not engage the lawyer or sign the initial written statement. The Court also considered the potential prejudice to the appellant if the amendment were allowed.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s logical reasoning for Issue 1 (Whether Respondent No. 6 could be permitted to amend her written statement) can be summarized as follows:

The Court emphasized that since Respondent No. 6 made a clear admission and failed to provide a valid reason to resile from it, the amendment could not be permitted.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A party cannot resile from a categorical admission made in a pleading unless there is a valid reason, such as fraud or mistake.
• ✓ Courts will generally not allow amendments to written statements that seek to displace the plaintiff’s case entirely.
• ✓ The burden of proving that an admission was made under mistake or fraud lies on the party making the admission.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a categorical admission made in a pleading cannot be resiled from unless there is a valid reason, such as fraud or mistake. This reaffirms the established legal principle that admissions are binding on the party making them and can form the basis of the rights of the parties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that Respondent No. 6 could not amend her written statement to resile from the admissions made in her initial written statement. This decision reinforces the principle that categorical admissions in pleadings are binding and cannot be easily retracted without valid justification.