SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PARTITION OF SUIT PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT DETERMINING THE GENUINENESS OF THE WILL

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C. T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 24.09.2024 in the matter of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors etc., Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) No. 30324 of 2019 and observed if a Will exists, it must be respected. However, if any party affected by the Will challenges it on any grounds, the succession process cannot proceed until the dispute concerning the Will is resolved.

FACTS:

1) That the Appeal mentioned above, was filed before the Apex Court by the, Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu (Appellant / Defendant) against one Suman Agarwal (Bindal) (Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff No. 1), Sanjay Goya (Respondent No. 2 / Plaintiff No. 2), Indra Mangal (Respondent No. 3 /Plaintiff No. 3) and Babita Mangal (Respondent No. 4 / Plaintiff No. 4) who challenged the validity of the Judgment dated 21.08.2019, passed by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (High Court) in P. No.1695 of 2018. These Appeals arose from an Application filed by Respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) (Amendment of pleadings), which was granted, overturning the Order dated 14.03.2018, issued by the 8th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior, District Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 241-A/2016, where the Application had been previously rejected.

2) The Appellant and the Respondents are siblings, children of Smt. Katoribai. The dispute centres around House No. 27/1695, renumbered as 1695/1804, located at Gangamai Santar, Murar, District Gwalior, M.P., which was purchased through a registered Sale Deed on 01.01.1987.

3) On 14.01.2013, Smt. Katoribai executed a Will, bequeathing the Suit Property to the Applicant / Defendant. She passed away on 05.03.2013. The Defendant claimed that the Respondents / Plaintiffs acknowledged the Will and acted in accordance with it, as evidenced by Agreements dated 20.12.2024 and 28.12.2014.

4) Suman Agarwal (Bindal), the Plaintiff, filed Civil Suit No. 241-A/2016 before the 8th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior (M.P.), seeking a 1/5th share in the Suit Property, alleging that it belonged to their Father, late Shri Gyan Chand Goyal. On 25.07.2016, the Defendant submitted a written statement, requesting the Court to dismiss the Suit based on the Will executed by Smt. Katoribai.

5) On 28.07.2016, the Plaintiff filed an Application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC (Production of documents), requesting the production of the Will and the Agreements. In response, the Defendant submitted these documents. A temporary injunction was also issued, preventing the creation of third-party rights.

6) The Defendant successfully carried out the mutation in their favour in the relevant records. The Plaintiff then filed an Application under Order VI Rule 17, read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to amend the Plaint by adding movable properties to the list of assets to be partitioned and questioning the authenticity of the Will. On 26.10.2017, Plaintiff sought to withdraw this Application but filed a new one the same day, along with an Application under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC (Right to begin) and 3 CPC (Evidence where several issues), requesting that Defendant present evidence first.

7) On 14.03.2018, the Court rejected both the Amendment Application and the Application under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3.

8) Aggrieved by this, the Plaintiff filed a miscellaneous Writ Petition under Article 227 (M.P. No. 1695 of 2018). On 21.08.2019, the High Court allowed the Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which is now under challenge in this Appeal.

TRIAL COURT:

The Trial Court observed that the Amendment Application had been filed approximately one year and three months after the Suit and response were submitted, without any demonstration of due diligence by the Plaintiff. It noted that the Application was not based on any subsequent event, rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim of being unaware of the relevant facts earlier. Since the trial proceedings were already underway and the amendment was not grounded in any new development, the Court held that the Application did not meet the legal standard for allowing an Amendment after the commencement of the trial and thus rejected it for being unduly delayed.

HIGH COURT:

The High Court found that the Trial Court had adopted a “hyper-technical” approach in rejecting the Amendment Application. It emphasized that the Plaintiff could only be denied her share in the property (1/5th as per Succession Law) if the Defendant could establish the genuineness of the Will. The High Court noted that no issue had been framed by the Trial Court regarding the validity of the Will, which was crucial to the case. It further stated that justice required the amendment to be allowed, especially since the Plaintiff had not yet been cross-examined.

The High Court allowed the Amendment Application, ruling that it was necessary to determine the real issues between the Parties. It also granted the Plaintiff the liberty to file a fresh application under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3 CPC, which would be considered in light of the amended pleadings. The High Court concluded that allowing the amendment would ensure a fair and complete adjudication of the dispute, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings​.

 

SUPREME COURT:

Aggrieved by the High Court Order dated 21-08-2019, the Appellants filed Special Leave Petition No.30324 of 2019 before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide Order dated 24.009.2024 held as follows:

ISSUE:

a) Whether the High Court erred in allowing the amendment to the Plaint filed by the Respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

 b) Whether the genuineness of the Will should be examined as a crucial aspect of the dispute regarding the succession of the property.​

OBSERVATION:

The Court emphasized that if there is a Will, it must be honored. However, if a party affected by the Will challenges its validity, the process of succession cannot move forward until the dispute regarding the Will is resolved. It stressed that the genuineness of the Will was crucial for determining the rights of the parties, especially in a case involving succession.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that delays in judicial processes should be avoided but noted that not all delays should determine the outcome of a suit. The Court highlighted that if the Defendant’s argument regarding the delay in the amendment application were accepted, the issue of the Will would remain unresolved. It emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted when allowing amendments, especially if it would prevent multiplicity of litigation and help resolve the real issue in controversy.

The Court concluded that without determining the authenticity of the Will, the partition of the disputed property could not proceed. Therefore, it upheld the High Court’s decision to allow the amendment, setting aside the Trial Court’s refusal, and directed the Trial Court to decide on all issues, including the genuineness of the Will, expeditiously​.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to allow the amendment of the Plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court emphasized that the genuineness of the Will is a pivotal issue that must be resolved before proceeding with the succession and partition of the disputed Property. It reiterated that if a Will exists, it must be respected, but any challenges to it must be addressed before the process of succession can continue. The Court criticized the Trial Court’s rejection of the amendment as overly technical and affirmed the necessity of a liberal approach to amendments to ensure justice and avoid multiple litigations. The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously in resolving all issues, including the validity of the Will, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case​.

 

Adv. Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer