TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bed in Para 1 of the plaint on the allegations stated in brief as follows: The suit properties originally belonged to one Veersangayya (since deceased). On his death, Appasao (since deceased) and Balasao (since deceased) came to inherit the suit properties. The appellants who are defendants 8 to 14 in the suit are the heirs and legal representatives of Balasao (since deceased). The Plaintiff inherited one half share of the suit properties jointly with defendant Nos. 1 to 7, on the death of Appasao. Since the appellants had refused to partition the suit properties and deliver separate possession, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and possession. 4. The defendant Nos. 1 to 7 who are respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in this appeal entered appearance in the suit and filed their written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. After entering appearance in the suit, the appellants on 28th February, 2003 filed their written statement in which they admitted that the plaintiff with defendant No. 1 to 7 were entitled to one half share in the suit properties. Initially, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the appellants on 18th June, 2003, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies, it was not permissible for them to withdraw such admission by an amendment of the written statement as that will amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff causing irretrievable prejudice to him. 8. In order to come to this conclusion, the High Court relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co. [1977]1SCR728 . According to the High Court, the decision in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) was a clear authority for the proposition that once a written statement contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment, such an admission of the defendants, cannot be withdrawn and if allowed, it would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff, causing irretrievable prejudice to him. Similarly relying on another decision of this Court in the case of Heera Lal v. Kalyan Mal and Ors. AIR1998SC618 , the High Court held that the amendment, if allowed, would displace the case of the plaintiff and his right to get the partition decree and, therefore, amendment was impermissible in law. Dissatisfied with this order of the High Court, this Special Leave Petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) which was relied on by the High Court while rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. He strongly contended that if such amendment was allowed, admissions made by the appellants in Para 8 of their written statement would be entirely washed out as a bare perusal of the written statement would clearly show that the appellants have admitted one-half share of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in the suit properties in their written statement. Mr. Lalit also contended that the decision in Baldev Singh's case (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants in support of his contention would not be applicable in the facts of this case. Therefore Mr. Lalit contended that the amendment of the written statement introducing an entirely different and inconsistent case cannot be allowed as it would displace the admission made in para 8 of the written statement and deprive the plaintiff of a valuable right already accrued to him on account of the admission. 11. Relying on the decision in the case of Heera Lal (supra) as relied on by the High Court in the impugned order, Mr. Lalit contended that the admission made in para 8 of the written stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bonafide one. In this connection, the observation of the Privy Council in the case of Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung AIR 1922 P.C. 249 may be taken note of. The Privy Council observed: All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit. (Underlining is ours) 15. It is equally well settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of allowing the amendment the other party can be compensated in money. Technicality of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. In the case of L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [1957]1SCR438 , this Court observed "that the Courts are more generous in allowing amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event". In that case this Court also held "that the defendant has right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to serious injustice." 18. Keeping these principles in mind, namely, that in a case of amendment of a written statement the Courts would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can also be allowed, we may now proceed to consider whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmission till the plaintiff moved an application for appointment of receiver regarding admitted items of properties. It is only thereafter that the application for amendment was moved. Learned Trial Judge was right when he observed that even the ground made out in the application were not justified. Consequently, there is no question of taking inconsistent stand which would not have affected pre-judicially the plaintiff as wrongly assumed by the High Court. Keeping the aforesaid observations and also the facts involved in Heera Lal's case (supra) in mind, we are of the view that the decision in that case may not be of any help to respondents. 20. Coming back to the facts of the present case regarding amendment of the written statement, we find that the appellants had stated in para 8 of their original written statement "that plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have got = share and defendant Nos. 8 to 14 have got = share in all the family properties" and that the maternal aunts have also got share. By seeking incorporation of paras 8A and 8B and substitution of para 8 in the written statement, the appellants have maintained the admissions made by them in para 8 of the writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to have been admitted by the appellants in their written statement. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellants are only raising an issue regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 7 to inherit the suit properties as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Appasao. Therefore, it must be held that in view of our discussions made herein above, the High Court was not justified in reversing the order of the trial court and rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. 23. As noted herein earlier, Mr. Lalit while inviting us to reject the application for amendment of the written statement as was done by the High Court had placed strong reliance on the case of Modi Spinning (supra). In that case, a suit was filed by the plaintiff for claiming a decree for Rs. 1,30,000 against the defendants. The defendants in their written statement admitted that by virtue of an agreement dated 7th April, 1967 the plaintiff worked as their stockists-cum distributor. After three years the defendants by application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code sought amendment of written statement by substituting paras 25 to 26 with a new para in which they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plained and inconsistent pleas can be taken in the pleadings and thus amendment of the written statement can be allowed. In our opinion, as noted herein earlier, in the present case, the amendment would not displace the case of the plaintiff, as it would only help the court to decide whether the respondents are eligible to the said share in the property on proof of their legitimacy for which no irretrievable prejudice would be caused either to the plaintiff or to defendant Nos. 2 to 8. Accordingly, we do not think that Basavan Jaggu Dhobi could be applied in the facts of this case, which is clearly distinguishable. 24. Again in the case of Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa AIR1995SC1498 this Court held that even an admission in the pleadings can be explained and inconsistent pleas can be taken in amendment petition even after taking a definite stand in the written statement. However, in that decision the amendment of the written statement was rejected mainly on the ground that respondents had entered into an agreement for development of the land for mutual benefit of the parties and thereby the trial court came to a conclusion that it was not open to the respondent to explain w....