Plea For Amendment To Partition Suit During Pendency Of Trial Cannot Be Denied On Technicalities: Andhra Pradesh High Court
A single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has ruled that in a partition suit, a plaintiff may not always be aware of all the ancestral properties to be partitioned. If he later discovers additional properties which need to be partitioned or included in the partition suit during the pendency of the case, he should be allowed to amend the suit...
A single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has ruled that in a partition suit, a plaintiff may not always be aware of all the ancestral properties to be partitioned. If he later discovers additional properties which need to be partitioned or included in the partition suit during the pendency of the case, he should be allowed to amend the suit to include them.
The Court directed that amendments to add such properties cannot be refused on a mere technical plea.
The ruling came in a case where a Civil Revision Petition was filed before the High Court challenging an order passed by the XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid, in I.A. No.1123 of 2024, which allowed an amendment application in a partition suit. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to provide documentary proof that the newly included properties belonged to one Pitta Venkata Ratnam and that the amendment was filed at a late stage of the trial.
The plaintiffs had initially filed the suit for partition, listing properties as item Nos.1 to 5. During the trial, they sought an amendment to include item Nos.6 to 8 and to correct the extent and survey numbers of the already listed properties. They contended that these errors resulted from their previous counsel's mistakes and were neither intentional nor willful and that they only recently became aware of the additional properties while discussing the case with their new counsel.
Given that all joint family properties should be included in a partition suit to avoid partial partition and multiple proceedings, they sought to rectify these omissions.
The XV Additional District Judge, by order dated 08.11.2024, allowed the amendment, reasoning that it did not alter the fundamental nature of the suit and could be considered even after the commencement of the trial. The Court accepted the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay and ruled that mere delay was not a valid ground to reject the amendment.
When the matter came before the High Court, it upheld the order of the Additional District Judge and observed that no illegality was committed in allowing the amendment application. The Court held that it is well-settled in law that at the stage of amendment, the merits or the correctness of the plea sought to be added are not required to be examined, and the amendment application is to be considered and decided as per Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
The Court further observed: “It is well settled that in a suit for partition, the plaintiff has ordinarily to include all the properties. The law looks with disfavor upon properties being partitioned partially. Their correct extent is also to be mentioned. It is so, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and that all the properties, in case of plaintiffs' success in proving the case for partition, be available for equitable distribution, taking into account all the properties and their respective shares as per law, amongst the parties legally entitled to share.”
The Court relied on the case of Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) (2024), where the Supreme Court held that a liberal approach should be adopted when considering amendment applications. It emphasised that procedural aspects should not override substantive issues and that if an amendment could not have been filed earlier despite due diligence, it should not be rejected solely due to delay.
Consequently, the High Court held that considering the nature of the suit being for partition, ordinarily, all the properties should be included in the suit schedule to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings, as also following the principle of law that partition suit must generally include all the properties of the common ancestor, they should weigh over the second part that the trial has commenced.
“The procedural aspect, cannot override the substantial part,” it said.
Finding no merit in the Civil Revision Petition, the High Court dismissed it accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.67 of 2025
Case Name: Pitta Samadana Swarooparani v. Pitta Kumari
Date of Judgment: 05.03.2025