0

Trial can it be held whether a property is ancestral property or self acquired properties and therefore amendment of the plaint at the pre-trial stage to include such properties, is permissible: karnataka high court

This particular decision is held by the High Court Of Karnataka through the single bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum in the case of K Durga Prasad Shetty v. Dr Shashikala and Others

Facts 

Rejected a petition filed by K Durga Prasad Shetty, challenging an order dated November 16, 2021 by which the trial court allowed the application filed by the original plaintiffs Dr Shashikala and others under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to incorporate additional properties and pleadings in that regard.

On the other hand the counsel for respondents contended that the amendment was sought at pre-trial stage and therefore, all amendments more particularly those which are sought at pre-trial stage have to be liberally allowed by taking a lenient view.

Moreover, where relationships are admitted and if one of the family members was to assert and claim that particular property is his self acquired property, the said question has to be adjudicated only by a full fledged trial and the parties have to be relegated to trial. At the stage of considering amendment application, the family members cannot be permitted to assert absolute right over a particular property

Orders and judgements 

The bench noted that the respondent (original plaintiffs in the suit) has specifically averred that there is an arrangement in the family where the present petitioner-defendant is entrusted to look after the suit schedule property and is under bounden duty to render accounts of income and expenditure every year and is required to distribute the profits derived from the suit schedule properties. It is also alleged that the petitioner-defendant has utilized the income derived from the joint family ancestral property.

“By way of amendment the respondents-plaintiffs claim that the properties which are now sought to be inserted by way of amendment are also joint family ancestral properties while the petitioner claims that these properties are his self acquired properties and therefore, not available for partition.”

Merely because the proposed amendment may cause some inconvenience to the petitioner-defendant, on an assumption that it is his self acquired properties cannot be a ground to reject the amendment application.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by- Mohammed Shoaib

Click here to view the judgement 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat