“Amendment in Partition Suit Allowed Despite Commencement of Trial” – Andhra Pradesh High Court States, ‘Mere Delay Not a Ground for Rejection’
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld an order permitting amendment of the plaint in a partition suit despite the commencement of trial, observing that mere delay cannot be a ground to deny the amendment. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, while dismissing a civil revision petition, stated, “A suit for partition should ordinarily embrace all properties. The procedural aspect cannot override the substantial part.” The Court concluded that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously in allowing the amendment, which sought to include additional properties and correct certain extents in the plaint schedule.
The Court was adjudicating upon a challenge to the order dated November 8, 2024, passed by the XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid, allowing an amendment application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The petitioners, who were the defendants in the suit, contended that the amendment was sought belatedly after the cross-examination of witnesses had commenced and that the plaintiffs failed to establish their ownership of the additional properties. However, the High Court found that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary for a complete adjudication of the partition claim.
The civil revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants, challenging the trial court's decision to permit the amendment. The petitioners argued that the amendment was an attempt to overcome deficiencies exposed during cross-examination and that the plaintiffs had not shown due diligence. The High Court rejected these contentions, stating that "whether the newly added properties belong to the deceased or not is a matter to be decided at trial, not at the amendment stage.”
The partition suit was initiated by the respondents seeking division of five properties, claiming a 25-share entitlement after dividing the assets into 49 full shares. The first plaintiff, Pitta Kumari, asserted that she was married to Pitta Venkata Ratnam in 1974 as per Hindu religious rites. She further alleged that while their marriage was subsisting, Venkata Ratnam entered into a second marriage with the first defendant, Pitta Samadana Swarooparani, from which the second to fourth defendants were born.
The plaintiffs contended that the joint family possessed ancestral and self-acquired properties and that all heirs, except the first defendant, were entitled to equal shares. It was alleged that despite legal notice, the defendants refused to cooperate with the partition, prompting the suit.
The defendants refuted these claims, asserting that the first plaintiff was not legally recognized as the wife of Venkata Ratnam. They contended that the first defendant was the legally wedded wife, with their marriage solemnized in 1975 under Christian customs. The defendants maintained that the properties in question were self-acquired and not ancestral, and that there was no ancestral nucleus from which Venkata Ratnam purchased them. They also challenged the plaintiffs’ omission of certain properties and denied any obligation to partition the assets.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an amendment application seeking to add three more properties to the plaint schedule and to correct certain details in the existing schedule. They argued that these omissions were due to typographical errors and inadvertence, discovered only during discussions with new legal counsel.
The High Court extensively examined the trial court’s reasoning and applicable legal precedents on amendment of pleadings. It reiterated that in a partition suit, all relevant properties should ideally be included to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, which held that “the law looks with disfavor upon properties being partitioned partially” but allows exceptions when portions of the property are not in possession of coparceners.
Addressing the petitioners’ claim that the plaintiffs had not produced proof of ownership for the newly added properties, the High Court clarified that such matters should be determined during trial and not at the amendment stage. It cited Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. K.K. Modi, where the Supreme Court held that “the court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment” while considering an amendment application.
The Court also addressed concerns regarding the timing of the amendment, given that trial had already commenced. It referred to Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not create an absolute bar on post-trial amendments but merely imposes additional scrutiny. The Court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated due diligence, noting that “the mistake was discovered only after engaging new counsel and was acted upon immediately.”
Additionally, the Court relied on Waheeda Begum v. Md. Yakub, which held that “pre-trial amendments should ordinarily be allowed liberally, while post-trial amendments should be permitted if they do not prejudice the opposite party and serve the ends of justice.” The Court found that allowing the amendment would not cause prejudice to the defendants, as they would have an opportunity to contest the plaintiffs’ claims during trial.
The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, stating, “For the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which advances the cause of justice.” It further observed, “No case for interference is made out in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is not to be invoked in a routine manner.”
It held that the amendment did not cause prejudice to the defendants and stated, “Considering that in the facts of the case the mistake could be bona fide as also that a suit for partition should ordinarily embrace all properties, and delay is not a ground to deny the amendment and that by inclusion of the properties sought to be added, no prejudice is going to be caused, as it shall be for the parties to the suit to prove during trial if that property belonged to Pitta Venkata Ratnam or not in which both the parties will have the opportunity, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference with the impugned Order.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded, “The Civil Revision Petition has no merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.” It also directed, “Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
- For the Petitioners: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela
- For the Respondents: Not represented
Case Title: Pitta Samadana Swarooparani & Others v. Pitta Kumari & Others
Case Number: CRP No. 67 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
[Read/Download order]
