Karnataka HC Lets Daughter’s Stepmother Add Late Father’s Will to Partition Defence, Finding It Consistent With Earlier Property Plea

The petitioner, defendant No. 2 in O.S. No. 223/2014, and defendant No. 1 had filed a joint written statement asserting that the disputed plot was their self-acquired property and not joint family property

After defendant No. 1 died on 2 March 2017, the petitioner sought, by I.A. No. 37, to amend the written statement to plead that defendant No. 1 had executed a registered Will in her favour concerning his share in the plot and to seek a declaration of her ownership

The trial court rejected the application, reasoning that the amendment would withdraw an admission in the original written statement

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings.

In applying that provision, the Court considered whether the proposed amendment was consistent with the existing foundational pleading, whether it would withdraw an earlier admission, and whether it would prejudice the opposing party.

The Court also applied Article 227 of the Constitution in reviewing the trial court’s order.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The original written statement specifically asserted that the plot was the exclusive property of defendants 1 and 2, rather than joint family property; the proposed amendment elaborated on that claim by describing the joint purchase and the alleged subsequent Will

The amendment therefore furthered, rather than withdrew, the existing foundational plea, and the trial court’s contrary conclusion was unsustainable

Although the Will was sought to be introduced in 2022 despite the testator’s death in 2017, the Court held that it could not have been pleaded while the testator was alive; the delay did not, in the circumstances, justify rejecting the amendment

Since the amendment was sought before issues were framed, the Court found that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff

The Court quashed the trial court’s order dated 16 February 2024, and allowed I.A. No. 37.

The trial court was directed to permit the petitioner to carry out the amendment to the written statement