A partition suit cannot be amended to challenge an outsider’s title to property finally deleted from it.

The Petitioners, original Plaintiff Nos. 1(a)–1(d), instituted a partition suit concerning alleged Hindu Undivided Family properties, originally numbered High Court Suit No. 1212 of 1991 and later renumbered as S.C. Suit No. 9984 of 1991.

Land bearing Survey No. 151A was included in the suit properties, although it had been conveyed by the Khot family to Bafna Charitable Trust (“BCT”) by an Indenture dated 14 January 1971.

After a Court Receiver was appointed over the suit properties, BCT sought deletion of Survey No. 151A from the suit and discharge of the Receiver.

By order dated 1 August 2008, this Court allowed the application, deleted Survey No. 151A from the suit, discharged the Receiver in respect of the land, and granted liberty to the parties to adopt appropriate proceedings against BCT. The order attained finality.

BCT subsequently conveyed the land to Respondent No. 72, Atul Builders and Estates Ltd., on 28 October 2009.

The Petitioners thereafter filed Chamber Summons No. 718 of 2010 seeking impleadment of BCT and consequential declarations regarding its lack of title, and Chamber Summons No. 1089 of 2011 seeking impleadment of Atul Builders and restoration of Survey No. 151A to the suit properties.

The City Civil Court dismissed both applications by order dated 14 September 2015, leading to the present writ petition.

Whether the Petitioners could, by amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reintroduce Survey No. 151A into the partition suit and implead BCT and Atul Builders after the property had been deleted by a final order of the High Court?

Whether the proposed amendments, seeking declarations against BCT and Atul Builders without expressly challenging the Indentures dated 14 January 1971 and 28 October 2009, were legally maintainable?

Whether the proposed amendments introduced a time-barred claim and altered the nature and scope of the original partition suit?

Whether alienation by an outsider, namely the Khot family, in favour of BCT could be adjudicated in the Petitioners’ partition suit concerning the Patil family properties?

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, under which amendments necessary for determining the real controversy should ordinarily be allowed, particularly before commencement of trial, but may be refused where they introduce a time-barred claim, alter the nature of the suit, are mala fide, or deprive the opposite party of a valuable defence.

Relying on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Court held that delay alone is insufficient, but an amendment introducing a grossly time-barred cause of action or an entirely new case may be rejected.

South Konkan Distilleries v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik, (2008) 14 SCC 632, was applied for the principle that a new, time-barred cause of action cannot ordinarily be introduced by amendment, though a different approach to the same existing cause of action may be permitted.

The Court distinguished Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738, holding that although strangers’ independent title claims cannot generally be adjudicated in a simple partition suit, alienation by a coparcener may, in an appropriate case, be challenged in a partition suit.

It further relied on Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, (2022) 8 SCC 145, for the principle that an amendment changing the nature of the suit or causing misjoinder of causes of action should not be allowed.

The Court held that the liberty granted in the 2008 order to adopt “appropriate proceedings” did not authorise the Petitioners to undo the specific direction deleting Survey No. 151A from the suit.

Since that order had attained finality, the property could not be reintroduced through amendment.

The Petitioners had also consciously excluded BCT from the original suit despite knowing of the 1971 Indenture, and their proposed amendments did not challenge either the 1971 transfer to BCT or the 2009 transfer to Atul Builders.

A declaration that BCT or Atul Builders had no title, without adjudicating the instruments through which their title was claimed, was therefore defective.

The Court further found that the proposed reliefs were grossly time-barred because the Petitioners had knowledge of the 1971 transaction when the original suit was filed in 1991, but sought relief against BCT only in 2010 and against Atul Builders in 2011.

The later transferee had merely stepped into BCT’s shoes, making the claim against it equally vulnerable to limitation.

Unlike a challenge to alienation by a coparcener, which may be examined alongside partition to determine the parties’ shares, the transaction here was between the Khot family and BCT—outsiders to the Patil family dispute.

Determining whether the Khots possessed title to transfer the property would require an independent title adjudication and would divert the partition suit into a substantially different proceeding.

The Petitioners’ concern that they might otherwise lack a remedy did not justify enlarging the scope of the present suit; they could seek appropriate relief, including impleadment, in the independently instituted Suit No. 8031 of 1984.

It held that Survey No. 151A could not be restored to the suit after its deletion by a final order, and that BCT and Atul Builders were neither necessary nor proper parties to the partition suit in the circumstances.

The proposed amendments were defective, grossly time-barred, and would alter the nature of the suit by introducing an independent title dispute concerning transactions between the Khot family, BCT, and Atul Builders.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the City Civil Court’s order dated 14 September 2015 rejecting Chamber Summons Nos. 718 of 2010 and 1089 of 2011 was upheld.