SHIKHARCHAND JAIN versus DIGAMBER JAIN PRABAND KARINI SABHA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 11-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
I 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
101 
SHIKHARCHAND JAIN 
I'. 
DJ GAMBER JAIN PRABAND KAR!NI SABHA AND OTHERS 
Jan11a1J' 11, 1974. 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S.N. Dw1vEDI AND P.K. Gosw."11, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code-Amend111ent of the written shUe1ne11t during pe11d1:11cy of the 
appeal-Whether Appellate Court can order amend111e11t of the written statement 
in l'ieft' of cltange of circwnstances not co11te111plated at the time of i11stitu1ioJt of the 
suit. 
The respondent no.1, Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha instituted a suit agJinst 
the appellant for recovery of possession of certain agricnltllral land, 
Respondent 
Smt. Rajrani was the malik maqbooza of the land who, in 1954, gifted the land by a 
registered gift deed in favour of respondent no. 1. The third and fourth r~spondcnts 
were cultivating the land. Respondent no. 1 sued them for possession but they pl-
eaded that the appellant had sub-let the land to them. The suit was decreed. 
Their 
appeals \verc disnlisscd. The appellant thereafter had filed a suit against respon-
dent no. l for a declaration that the gift made by the 5th respondent in favour of 
the 1st respondent was void; but the suit was dismissed for default. 
The suit from which the present appeal arose, was filed and all the defendants 
except Smt. Rajrani filed their written statement. The trial court decreed the suit 
in favour of respondent no. 1. On appeal, the first appellate court allowed the appeal 
but on a second appeal, the High Court reversed the decree of the app~llate court 
and restored the decree of the trial court and hence the present appeal before this 
Court. 
Remanding the case to the trial court, 
HELD : (1) In his written statement, the appellant had admitted Smt. Rajrani's 
ownership of the land. But he had pleaded that he became the owner of the land by 
adverse possession for more than 12 years from 1937. The khasra entries from 1937-
38 to 1941-42 and 1943-44 to 1951·52 are all in favour of Smt. Rajrani. Further, 
assuming that the appellants• adverse possession started in 1937 and continued till 
1949, he becan1e the owner of the land in dispute in 1950. -Nevertheless, he did not 
move the appropriate revenue authority to correct the entries in the record of 
rights. Again one of his own witnesses, has admitted that the appellant had been 
paying rent of the disputed land on behalf of Smt. Rajrani till 1958-59. Had he 
became an owner by adverse possession in 1950, he would never have paid rent on 
bcha1f of Smt. Rajrani. 
Maharaja Srischandra Nandy v. &ajna1h Jugal Kishore 62, Indian Appeals 40; 
Deity Paltabhiramaswanzy v. S. H::inym1yya, A.LR. 1959 S. C. 57 and H. R. 
Raniacha11dra11 Ayyar v. Ramalingani Clzettiar, [1963) 3 S.C.R. 604, referred to. 
(2) During pendency of the appeal, as Smt. Rajrani died in 1968, the appeallant 
filed an application for substitution of himself as her legal representative in place of 
Smt. Rajrani. No order has yet been made on this application. Now he has made 
another application in the course of hearing seeking amendment of his written 
statement in view of the changed circumstances to the effect that as the limited owner 
Smt. Rajrani died, he is entitled to the disputed property as the sole reversioner and 
respondent no. 1 and no right in the said lands. 
lt is, therefore open to the Court, including a court of appeal to take notice of 
events which have happened afrer the institution of the suit and afford relief to the 
parties. 
Rai Charan lv/amlal and 01101/ier \', Bisll'anath 111andal and others A.LR. 1915 
Cal. I 03, referred to. 
(3) Under .the circumstances, since the death of Smt. Rajrani creates a 
fresh 
[cause of action to the appellant who claims to be her next reversioner, it will be just 
and proper to allow the amendment. Therefore, the amendment is allo\\'ed 
and 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
C 19741 3 s.c.R. 
the case will go back to the trial court and the trial court will give reasonable time 
to the respondent to file a reply to the amended written statement. The trial Court 
will then record its findings and the new plea raised by the appellant and shall forward 
them to this Court through High Court within 4 months of the receipts of the 
record. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
October 17, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Ap-
peal No. 521 of 1962. 
· 
V. M. Tarkunde, S. L. Jain and M. S. Gupta, for the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.