LexMAHILA RAMKALI DEVI AND OTHERS versus NANDRAM (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 4 S.C.R. 974 A MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI AND OTHERS B v. NANDRAM (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS Civil Appeal No. 2366 of 2010 MAY 14, 2015 [M.Y. EQBAL AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 r. 17 - C Amendment of plaint - Appellant no. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of suit properly on the basis of Will - Application for amendment of plaint filed by appellant no.1 to make appellant no.2 to 5 entitled to D suit properly on the basis of inheritance - High Courl held that it was not in the interest of justice to allow the application for amendment as it would totally change the character of the plaint after lapse of more than 40 years - Held: The Courl always gives relief to amend the pleading E of the parly, unless it is satisfied that the parly applying was acting malafide - High Courl ought not to have rejected the amendment application - Matter remitted back to High Courl for consideration afresh - Pleadings - Amendment of. F Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: 1. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration G of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless H 974 MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI v. NANDRAM (D) THR. LRS. 975 it is satisfied that the party applying was acting A malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. The High Court ought not to have rejected the application. [paras 20, 21) [984-f-h; 985-a] Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 1267: 1970 (1) SCR 22; Pandit lshwardas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 551: 1979 (2) SCR 424 - relied on. Nahar Hirasingh and Ors. vs. Dukalhin and Ors. AIR 1974 MP 141 - referred to. Case Law Reference AIR 1974 MP 141 1970 (1) SCR 22 1979 (2) SCR 424 referred to. relied on. relied on. Para 16 Para 22 Para 23 B c D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. E 2366 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in S.A. No. 310 of 1997. F Sushi! Kumar Jain, Dileep Tandon, Puneet Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Monu Maheshwari (For Pratibha Jain) for the Appellants. Niraj Sharma, Sumit Kumar Sharma for the G Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2005 of the High H 976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 4 S.C.R. A Court of Madhya Pradesh, which allowed the respondents' appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff- Appellants for declaration of title and possession of the suit property. B 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the suit property was originally owned by Hardayal who had two sons Raghuvardayal and Mahadev Prasad. When Hardayal died, the suit property fell to the share of Raghuvardayal and on his death it passed on to his wife Sumitra and then C his son Radhakishan and then Radhakishan's wife Ajuddhibai. 3. The plaintiff/appellant no.1 filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property in Gwalior o against the deceased Nandram and deceased Kashiram, who were original defendant nos.1 and 2 respectively and are now being represented through legal representatives and also against defendant no.3 Rukmani Bai. The case of the Appellants was that before Ajuddhibai died issueless E in 22.6.1961, she had executed a Will dated 21.1.1961 in favour of plaintiff/appellant no.1 who was the wife of Baijnath, son of Mahadev Prasad. The probate of the Will was also stated to have been obtained. The Appellants challenged the validity of the sale deed dated 19.12.1950 F purported to have been executed by Ajuddhibai in favour of defendant no.3-Rukmani Bai and sale deed dated 1.2.1962 executed by Rukmani Bai in favour of deceased Nandram-defendant no.1 and deceased Kashiram- defendant no.2 and alleged that defendant nos.1 and 2 G were thus in illegal possession of the suit property. The defendants Nandram and Kashiram denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that they had legally obtained the title of the suit property vide sale deed dat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.