Amendment To Add Properties In A Partition Suit Can’t Be Refused On Technical Plea During Pendency Of Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an amendment to add properties in a Partition Suit cannot be refused on a technical plea during the pendency of the case.

The Court held thus in a Civil Revision Petition filed by the Defendants in a Suit challenging the Order of the Additional District Judge in a case under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of a Plaint in a Partition Suit.

A Single Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed, “The plaintiff in a partition suit many times may not be aware of all the properties sought to be partitioned of the common ancestral properties and if during the pendency of the case he acquired knowledge about some more properties, which need to be partitioned or included in the partition suit, the amendment to add those properties cannot be refused on technical plea as raised in the present case.”

Advocate Sreenivasa Rao Velivela appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.

Case Background

The Plaintiffs had filed a Suit claiming 25 shares in five properties, alleging that they were joint family properties acquired with ancestral nucleus. The Defendants i.e., the Petitioners denied the Plaintiffs' claims, stating that the properties were self-acquired and not ancestral. During the trial, the Plaintiffs filed an Application to amend the Plaint, seeking to include three more properties and correct the extent of the existing properties.

The Defendants opposed the said Application, arguing that it was filed belatedly and without proof that the additional properties belonged to the joint family. The Trial Court allowed the amendment, holding that it did not change the nature of the Suit and that the defendants did not deny that the additional properties belonged to the joint family. Therefore, the Petitioners challenged this before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “It has not been argued that in spite of knowledge of the properties now sought to be added or the correct extents of the property items already included, either wrong description was given or the properties items 6 to 8 were deliberately omitted from addition in the plaint schedule property.”

The Court was of the view that 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. In any case, in the present case, the finding of due diligence has been recorded in favour of the plaintiff so as to allow the amendment application”, it added.

The Court while 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, said that 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 the Plaintiff 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. … this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which advances the cause of justice. 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 concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.

Cause Title- Pitta Samadana Swarooparani and 3 others v. Pitta Kumari and 3 others (Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.67 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Judgment