NIRMAL SETHI Vs. DEEP CHAND ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Nirmal Sethi and others have filed the suit against Shri Deep Chand Anand and others for declaration and injunction. After the institution of the suit the present application has been filed for amendment of the plaint inter alia on the grounds that by inadvertence and over-sight the plaintiff in para 6(v) of the plaint mentioned Kidar Cottage, Shimla to be an HUF property.

(2.) Subsequent to the filing of the suit the plaintiff has learnt that the said property is not an HUF property. Secondly, in para 8 of the plaint, due to the typographical error, the area of 6.29 acres, falling in Khasra No. 393 to 395 has wrongly been mentioned as "393 and 395" instead of 393 to 395". And lastly in order to avoid any technical objections, the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint seeking relief of partition of properties left by the parents of the parties by metes and bounds. This amendment she is seeking in order to finally and completely settle the controversy.

(3.) This application has been contested by the defendants on the ground that the amendment now sought will change the complexion of the case a]together. The plaintiff had all along been admitting that Kidar Cottage at Shimla is an HUF property and now seeks to withdraw this admission, this would adversely affect rights of the defendants. Rights have already accrued in their favour. If this amendment is allowed to be withdrawn, the claim of the plaintiff would increase from 1/50th to that of 1/10th, which cannot be permitted. As regards the other amendments the same can also be not allowed because the plaintiff omitted the Khasra No. 394, intentionally and now cannot be allowed to amend the same. Similarly, suit for partition cannot be sought for, if so advised the plaintiff should file a separate suit seeking partition of the properties.