Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Whether Plaint Can Be Amended at The Instance of Defendant in A Partition Suit To Include Property. Karnataka and Madras High Courts Take Different Views. - Daksha Legal

    Uploaded by

    Dhevrath Ac
    The document summarizes two different court rulings on whether a defendant can amend a partition suit plaint to include additional properties. The Karnataka High Court held that only the plaintiff can seek to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Meanwhile, the Madras High Court took a different view, finding that in a partition suit both plaintiff and defendant are on equal footing, so a defendant can request to include properties left out of the plaint schedule to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The document was published by Rajdakshalegal to compile the different judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Whether Plaint Can Be Amended at The Instance of Defendant in A Partition Suit To Include Property. Karnataka and Madras High Courts Take Different Views. - Daksha Legal

    Uploaded by

    Dhevrath Ac
    13 views3 pages
    The document summarizes two different court rulings on whether a defendant can amend a partition suit plaint to include additional properties. The Karnataka High Court held that only the plaintiff can seek to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Meanwhile, the Madras High Court took a different view, finding that in a partition suit both plaintiff and defendant are on equal footing, so a defendant can request to include properties left out of the plaint schedule to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The document was published by Rajdakshalegal to compile the different judgments.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Whether plaint can be amended at the instance of defendant in a partition suit to include property. Karnataka and Madras High Courts take different views. – Daksha Legal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes two different court rulings on whether a defendant can amend a partition suit plaint to include additional properties. The Karnataka High Court held that only the plaintiff can seek to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Meanwhile, the Madras High Court took a different view, finding that in a partition suit both plaintiff and defendant are on equal footing, so a defendant can request to include properties left out of the plaint schedule to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The document was published by Rajdakshalegal to compile the different judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views3 pages

    Whether Plaint Can Be Amended at The Instance of Defendant in A Partition Suit To Include Property. Karnataka and Madras High Courts Take Different Views. - Daksha Legal

    Uploaded by

    Dhevrath Ac
    The document summarizes two different court rulings on whether a defendant can amend a partition suit plaint to include additional properties. The Karnataka High Court held that only the plaintiff can seek to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Meanwhile, the Madras High Court took a different view, finding that in a partition suit both plaintiff and defendant are on equal footing, so a defendant can request to include properties left out of the plaint schedule to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The document was published by Rajdakshalegal to compile the different judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    Daksha Legal

    Whether plaint can be amended at the instance of de-


    fendant in a partition suit to include property.
    Karnataka and Madras High Courts take
    different views.
    rajdakshalegal November 15, 2020 Leave a comment

    Karnataka High Court. Channaveerappa Gowda vs


    Renukappa Gowda and others. Writ Petition
    34142/2012 decided on 1 April 2014.

    Judgment
    Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bi
    tstream/123456789/942536/1/WP34142-12-01-04-
    2014.pdf

    Held: Paragraph 14. Coming to the case on hand, Order VI Rule 17


    CPC provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings
    allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings as may be necessary
    for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
    The plaint, therefore, can be amended only at the instance
    of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant cannot seek to include
    a property in the plaint schedule.

    Madras High Court Solavaiammal v. Ezhumalai Goundar,


    2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2161 : (2011) 5 LW 859 : (2012) 1 CTC
    159 : (2012) 2 ICC 294 : 2012 AIR CC 778,
    15. Keeping the above principles in mind, the question raised in this
    civil revision petition is to be considered. Though a plain reading of
    Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would appear that
    only a party to the plaint or written statement, as the case may be,
    could seek for amendment on the ground that such a party would be
    the dominant litus, it will be only a general rule in respect of all suits
    barring a suit for partition. In terms of Order VI, Rule 17, only the
    respective party to the pleadings could seek for amendment, as they
    are referred to as the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be. In a
    partition suit, both the plaintiff and defendant are
    considered to be on the same pedestal to seek for a decree.
    This distinction is made by Courts. The application of Order
    VI, Rule 17 insofar as partition suits shall be considered
    keeping the above in mind.

    17. In a suit for partition, in the event the plaintiff has included only
    certain properties as if they are available for partition and leave some
    other properties which are also available for partition, the request
    of the defendant in such event to include the left out
    properties also in the plaint schedule would not in any way
    amount to altering or changing the nature or character of
    the suit, as such an amendment is also necessary for an
    effective adjudication of the case and to avoid multiplicity
    of proceedings.

    Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.

    Published by rajdakshalegal Senior Advocate, High Court of Karnataka,


    Bengaluru View more posts
    Leave a comment

    Write a comment...

    Log in or provide your name and email to leave a comment.

    Email (Address never made public)

    Name

    Website (Optional)

    Email me new posts

    Instantly Daily Weekly

    Email me new comments

    Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I
    comment.

    Comment

    Daksha Legal, Blog at WordPress.com.

    You might also like