2008 (3) TMI 681 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns amendment approval in written statement, emphasizing clear admissions and avoiding prejudice.

GAUTAM SARUP Versus LEELA JETLY & ORS

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment allowing the amendment of the written statement by Respondent No.6. The appeal was allowed, with no ... Whether the Trial Court was bound to determine the issue in regard to the validity of the Will dated 23.9.1999? Issues Involved:1. Validity and execution of the Will by Shanti Sarup.2. Admission and subsequent withdrawal of statements by Respondent No.6.3. Application for amendment of the written statement by Respondent No.6.4. Legal principles governing the amendment of pleadings and admissions in legal proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and Execution of the Will by Shanti Sarup:The Will executed by Shanti Sarup on 23.9.1999 bequeathed his properties in equal shares to the appellant and Respondent No.7, Ritu Sarup. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction. Respondents 1 to 5 did not deny the execution of the Will but filed a counterclaim. Respondent No.6 initially admitted the averments in the plaint but later disputed the claim.2. Admission and Subsequent Withdrawal of Statements by Respondent No.6:Respondent No.6 initially filed a written statement through Advocate M.P. Vasudeva, admitting the appellant's claims. She later filed another written statement denying the claims, alleging she had not engaged Vasudeva and her signatures on the first statement were forged. The Trial Judge allowed her application to withdraw the first statement. The High Court directed an enquiry, which concluded that Respondent No.6 had indeed engaged Vasudeva and filed the written statement. Her revision application against this finding was dismissed by the High Court.3. Application for Amendment of the Written Statement by Respondent No.6:Respondent No.6 filed an application for amendment of her written statement, which was allowed by the Trial Court. The appellant's revision application to the High Court was dismissed. The High Court opined that the plaintiff (appellant) would not be prejudiced by allowing the amendment, as the burden of proving the Will still lay with the plaintiff. The High Court also stated that the questions regarding the admissions in the original written statement could only be decided after allowing the amendment.4. Legal Principles Governing the Amendment of Pleadings and Admissions in Legal Proceedings:The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows amendments to pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy. The Court noted that an admission in a pleading is not treated the same as an admission in a document and can be explained or clarified but not completely resiled from. The Court referenced several precedents, including Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., which held that amendments displacing the plaintiff's case based on admissions should not be allowed.The Court concluded that Respondent No.6, having accepted the appellant's claims in her initial written statement, could not entirely resile from those admissions. The Court emphasized that while procedural amendments should be granted liberally, they must be done judiciously. The Court found that Respondent No.6's attempt to amend her written statement was not justified, as her initial admissions were clear and unequivocal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment allowing the amendment of the written statement by Respondent No.6. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs. The Court held that Respondent No.6 could not resile from her clear admissions in the initial written statement and that the procedural amendments should not be used to unjustly prejudice the appellant's case.