Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 01st DECEMBER, 2025
SMT. VANDANA RANA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kunwar Karan, Mr. Shekhar Mann, Mr. Rubal Mongia, Ms. Srishti Bajpai and Ms. Yashika Aneja, Advs.
Through:
RAVINDER RANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M Fareed Siddiqui, Adv.
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Beniwal and Mr. Vansh Aggarwal, Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Kunwar Karan and Mr. Shekhar Mann, Advs. for R-5.
JUDGMENT
1. This application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking amendment of the Plaint.
2. The present Suit is one for permanent injunction, partition with possession and for rendition of accounts. Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendants NO. 2, 3, and 4 are children of Defendant No. 1 and Late Smt. Barfo Devi. The present dispute arises out of inheritance of properties of Late Smt. Barfo Devi.
3. The facts of the case, as given in the Plaint, are as under: i. It is stated that late Smt. Barfo Devi, owned multiple valuable immovable properties across Delhi and Haryana. As detailed in the plaint, late Smt. Barfo Devi was the absolute owner of the following immovable properties: a. C-137, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi (300 sq. yards) b. C-141, Gali No. 7, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi (200 sq. yards) c. Plot No. 96, Pocket 27, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi (250 sq. yards, Commercial) d. Ground Floor, 8CD, Aggarwal Chambers, Pitampura, Delhi (3,750 sq. ft., Commercial) e. Agricultural Land, Village Kandela, District Jind, Haryana (15 acres 5 kanals 15 marlas) f. Agricultural Land, Village Kandela, Jind (1 acre 1 kanal 4 marlas) g. Agricultural Land, Village Roopgarh, Jind (4 acres 2 kanals 4 marlas) h. Plot, Village Ferozpur, Sonipat (1,000 sq. yards) ii. It is stated that prior to 2008, the familial relations between the parties were cordial. It is stated that in July 2008, Defendant No. 1 took Smt. Barfo Devi, the Plaintiff, and a close relative, namely, Ajay Kumar, to the Sub-Registrar’s office under the pretext of executing a simple Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant NO. 2 for management of properties. It is stated that the documents were already prepared, and were not shown to either Late Smt. Barfo Devi or the Plaintiff. It is stated that Late Smt. Barfo Devi signed the documents in good faith. However, this action of Defendant No.1 created a long-term suspicion in the minds of the Plaintiff and her Late Smt. Barfo Devi. iii. It is stated that between 2015–2016, Late Smt. Barfo Devi began expressing doubts regarding the documents signed in 2008, as Defendants No. 1 and 2 persistently refused to show her the said documents. It is stated that in order to ensure clarity of her intentions, she executed a registered Will dated 02.03.2017, expressly revoking all earlier Wills or testamentary dispositions. It is stated that in the said Will, Late Smt. Barfo Devi reaffirmed her equal affection toward all her children and wished that all her movable and immovable properties, except for 50% share in Flat No. CGB-086 in DLF Capital Greens, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi, which was purchased by the Plaintiff herein, should devolve equally among all her heirs as per law. iv. It is stated that on 24.05.2019, Smt. Barfo Devi passed away and all children, including the Plaintiff herein, became joint owners in equal undivided 1/5th shares of all the abovementioned properties. It is stated that the Plaintiff was in constructive possession of all assets and had physical possession of property mentioned at serial number (a), i.e. C-137, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. v. It is stated that soon after the death of Smt. Barfo Devi, Defendants No. 1 and 2 began pressuring the Plaintiff to give up her share. It is stated that Defendants No. 1 and 2 attempted similar pressure tactics on Defendants No. 3 and 4, who were financially and situationally vulnerable. It is stated that Defendant No. 4, who resided in the Majlis Park property, feared eviction at the hands of Defendant No. 1 and was therefore coerced into silence. vi. It is stated that during June–July 2019, Defendants No. 1 and 2 refused to disclose documents or accounts of the various properties, threatened to create third-party interests, and forbade Defendants No. 3 and 4 from speaking to the Plaintiff. It is stated that in September 2019, Defendant No. 4 finally disclosed to the Plaintiff that Defendants No. 1 and 2 had summoned her in June, 2019 and informed her that if the daughters don’t relinquish their shares, they would use a Will, which was fraudulently procured by Defendant No. 1 in July 2008. It is stated that this revelation confirmed that the 2008 document, which was concealed for years, was in fact a Will obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. vii. It is stated that with Defendants continuing to threaten alienation of the properties and refusing partition, the Plaintiff, being an NRI and unable to manage the situation personally, executed a Special Power of Attorney on 04.10.2019 and instituted the present Suit for injunction, partition, and rendition of accounts.
4. Summons in the Suit were issued on 19.11.2019. Written Statement on behalf of Defendants have been filed. Issues are yet to be framed.
5. The present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by the Plaintiff, seeking amendment of the Plaint. It is stated that the need for amendment arose only after she received the Written Statement of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, along with their reply to the injunction application and a copy of an alleged Will dated 24.07.2008, which had never been disclosed to her earlier. The Plaintiff states that until the receipt of these documents, she was under the belief that the document executed in July 2008 was merely a Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.2 for managing the properties of Late Smt. Barfo Devi. It is stated that the said Will was never shown to her or to Late Smt. Barfo Devi despite their repeated requests, and that Late Smt. Barfo Devi had also begun to suspect Defendant No.1’s intentions shortly before her death. It is stated that it was only when the Written Statement was served and the copy of the alleged Will was emailed to her Counsel that she discovered the true contents of the document purportedly executed on 24.07.2008. It is stated that Defendant No.1 had procured signatures of the Plaintiff, late Smt. Barfo Devi, and one Ajay Kumar by misrepresenting that they were signing a Power of Attorney, not a Will. It is further stated that the said Will was executed in a hurried, mechanical manner, with none of them being allowed to read its contents, and that the Sub-Registrar’s office raised no inquiries at the time of execution. It is stated that the Plaintiff saw this Will for the first time only in December 2019. It is further stated that after receipt of the Written Statement of Defendant No.4, the Plaintiff also came to know that Defendants No. 1 and 2 had got the agricultural land of Late Smt. Barfo Devi in District Jind, Haryana, mutated in the name of Defendant No.2 after the death of Smt. Barfo Devi. It is stated that this was done through concealment of material facts, manipulation of records, collusion with revenue officials, and by suppressing the existence of the last registered Will dated 02.03.2017, which had been relied upon earlier by the Defendants themselves in documentation submitted to DLF Home Developers Ltd. for transfer of a flat in Delhi. It is further stated that that none of the Defendants mentioned the alleged Will of 2008 in the affidavits and NOCs they executed in 2019 for transfer of the flat, thereby indicating deliberate concealment of the earlier Will. It is stated that the Will dated 24.07.2008 contains discrepancies, including absence of the date on the first page, incorrect addresses, suspicious handwriting, and usage of outdated identity documents, thereby raising serious doubts about its authenticity and therefore, the same is unenforceable as it has been obtained by fraud, and in any case stood revoked by the subsequent registered Will dated 02.03.2017. In light of these developments, which the Plaintiff claims came to her knowledge on different dates in 2019, the present application has been filed for amendment of the plaint to: a. challenge the alleged Will dated 24.07.2008, b. challenge the mutation of agricultural land in favour of Defendant No.2, c. incorporate additional factual pleadings (paras 6A to 6G), d. add declaratory reliefs, e. amend the cause of action paragraph, and f. amend the valuation and prayer clause accordingly.
6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that these amendments are essential for complete adjudication of the issues, as they arise from facts discovered only after the Written Statements and related records were served upon her. It is further stated that no prejudice will be caused to the Defendants, as the amendments relate to subsequent revelations and are necessary to address the alleged fraudulent acts concerning the Will dated 24.07.2008 and mutation of properties.
7. Reply to the present Application has been filed by the Defendants. In their reply Defendants No. 1 and 2 have stated that the Plaintiff’s plea of having believed the 2008 document to be a Power of Attorney is factually untenable, as the Plaintiff herself is an attesting witness to the said document and she had full knowledge of its contents right from the date of execution of the said Will. It is further stated that the Plaintiff’s proposed amendments represent a material shift in her stand, and are aimed at introducing a timebarred challenge to the Will, and are designed to overcome fatal deficiencies in the original Plaint and, therefore, the Application be dismissed. While Defendant No.3 has also opposed the present Application, Defendant No.2 has supported the Application of amendment of the Plaint.
8. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. Before going further, it is pertinent to extract Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and the same reads as under:
before the commencement of trial.”
10. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage, so long as such amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, and provided the application is not hit by the proviso restricting post-trial amendments. As issues in the present Suit have not yet been framed, the bar under the proviso does not come into operation.
11. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is settled law that courts should have a liberal approach in allowing amendment of a pleadings. The Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, has held as under:
determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166].)”
34. In the case of P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525, the above observations were reiterated by this Court and in the light of the same, this Court in para 9 held as under:
SC 96 wherein, it was held as follows:— “4. This Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn. [AIR 1967 SC 96: (1966) 1 SCR 796] held: “The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal [[L.R.] 19 Q.B. 394: 56 LJ QB 621]. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: See Charan Das v. Amir Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50: ILR 48 Cal 110] and L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357: 1957 SCR 438] The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith [[L.R.] 26 Ch. 700: 53 LJ Ch 891: 51 LT 729]) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644: 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363: 1957 SCR 595]). The expression „cause of action‟ in the present context does not mean „every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed‟ as was said in Cooke v. Gill [[L.R.] 8 C.P. 107: 42 LJCP 98: 28 LT 32] in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corpn. Ltd. [[1962] 2 All ER 24 (CA)] and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words „new case‟ have been understood to mean „new set of ideas‟: Dornan v. J.W. Ellis and Co. Ltd. [[1962] 1 All ER 303 (CA)] This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time.” Again in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC 393] this Court held: (SCC p. 399, para 22) “The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the court.” “4. It is clear from the foregoing summary of the main rules of pleadings that provisions for the amendment of pleadings, subject to such terms as to costs and giving of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to meet exact situations resulting from amendments, are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued.”……” *****
37. Thus, the Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to amend the plaint, written statement or file an additional written statement. It is, however, subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment, an opposite party should not be subject to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the other party is not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed liberally which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided that the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken.
38. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings.”
12. In addition, the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1, after analysing several case laws has summarised the law regarding amendment of pleadings as under:-
Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.
71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC.
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897].)”
13. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the amendment sought by the Plaintiff merits acceptance. It is not in dispute that issues have not yet been framed and the trial has not commenced. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is, therefore, not attracted, and the Plaintiff’s application falls squarely within the category of pre-trial amendments in which, as held by the Apex Court, the Court is required to adopt a liberal approach.
14. The amendments sought by the Plaintiff by way of the present Application are directly linked to the central disputes that arise from the pleadings namely, the validity of the registered Will dated 24.07.2008, the alleged concealment of that Will, the effect and operation of the subsequent registered Will dated 02.03.2017, and the mutation of substantial agricultural land in favour of Defendant No. 2. These questions already form the core of the Suit and have been introduced into the lis by the Defendants No.1, 2 & 3 themselves through their Written Statements. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s proposed amendments do not introduce a foreign or disconnected cause of action; rather, they elaborate issues which are already germane to the adjudication of rights flowing from the inheritance of the estate of late Smt. Barfo Devi.
15. The explanation given by the Plaintiff that she became aware of the contents of the 2008 Will only upon receipt of the Written Statements is a plausible and bona fide justification, particularly given her consistent stand that she believed the 2008 document to be a Power of Attorney and that the Defendants did not disclose the Will at any time between 2008 and 2019. Whether the Plaintiff’s account ultimately withstands trial scrutiny is a matter for evidence and cross-examination. For the present stage, the Plaintiff’s explanation cannot be discarded as inherently improbable or mala fide so as to justify denial of amendment. It is well settled that pleadings should not be shut out only because a party seeks to clarify or supplement its factual case after receiving the opponent’s defence.
16. The proposed amendment does not withdraw any clear or categorical admission that has vested in the Defendants any substantive or irreversible right. The Plaintiff has at no point admitted the validity or existence of the 2008 Will. On the contrary, the original Plaint already contained factual averments pointing to suspicion regarding the 2008 document. The amendment only elaborates those averments, adds details discovered later, and introduces necessary consequential reliefs that naturally flow from the Defendants’ own stand. Therefore, the amendment does not amount to retracting an admission but merely expands the material particulars which are essential for proper adjudication.
17. Equally significant is the fact that the Defendants themselves rely upon the 2008 Will not merely as a defence but as the foundation of their claim to exclusive or enhanced rights over immovable properties of considerable value. If the Plaintiff seeks to challenge that Will, the pleadings must contain clear, complete factual assertions to enable the Court to decide the controversy in a holistic manner. As held by the Apex Court in Sanjeev Builders (supra), where an amendment enables the Court to “pin-pointedly consider the dispute” and avoids fragmented or piecemeal adjudication, the amendment ought to be permitted and, therefore, permitting the amendment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. If denied, the Plaintiff would be compelled to institute a separate suit challenging the 2008 Will, questioning the mutation of agricultural land, or seeking declaratory reliefs now proposed. That outcome would contradict the settled law that amendment should ordinarily be allowed when it prevents multiple litigations and brings all controversies before the Court in one proceeding. The Defendants, in any event, can meet the amended pleadings through replication and evidence and, therefore, it cannot be said that any irreparable prejudice would be caused to the Defendants.
18. The question of limitation arising from the Plaintiff’s challenge to the 2008 Will is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be summarily adjudicated at this stage. As clarified by the Apex Court in Sanjeev Builders (supra), where limitation is arguable, the amendment should be permitted and the corresponding issue framed for adjudication during trial. The Defendants retain all rights to raise objections based on limitation, laches, knowledge, and delay and, therefore, permitting amendment will not curtail any defence of the Defendants.
19. This Court thus finds that the amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor introduces a new or inconsistent cause of action. It merely introduces additional particulars, additional grounds of challenge, and consequential reliefs that are integrally connected with the controversy already before the Court. The amendment is therefore necessary for determining the real questions in controversy as contemplated by Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
20. In light of the above discussion, and keeping in mind the settled position of law laid, this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff’s application is bona fide, necessary for effective adjudication, and does not cause any injustice to the Defendants.
21. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
22. The amended Plaint be taken on record. CS(OS) 593/2019 & I.A. 17652/2019, I.A. 24040/2023 TEST.CAS. 60/2019 & CRL.M.A. 25732/2022 List on 20.01.2026 before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J DECEMBER 01, 2025