Karnataka HC Upholds Amendment Citing 1986 Will In Mysuru Partition Suit, Says It Clarifies Title Without Removing Admission

The petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the trial court’s order allowing Defendant No. 8 to amend his written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The underlying suit was for partition.

The petitioner contended that the amendment, which elaborated on a registered Will dated 8 December 1986, would withdraw an admission in paragraph 5 of the written statement and introduce a new case concerning possession.

The High Court noted that the written statement referred to the Will but did not provide further details, and that the plaint likewise contained no such details.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendments to pleadings; the court may permit an amendment that is necessary to clarify the pleadings and assist in deciding the suit.

The High Court’s reasoning treated clarification of the flow of title as permissible where the amendment neither introduced a new cause of action nor took away an admission.

The petition invoked Article 227, under which the High Court considered whether the trial court’s order warranted supervisory interference.

The judgment cites no precedent.

The proposed amendment supplied further details about the registered Will already referred to in the written statement.

The trial court considered the pleadings and amendment and found the additional details necessary to clarify the flow of title.

On its own review, the High Court agreed that the amendment merely clarified that title, did not introduce a new cause of action, and did not remove any admission in the written statement.

It therefore found no ground for supervisory interference.

It also permitted the petitioner to file a rejoinder, if so advised.