SUGEETA CHHABRA Vs. HARISH NAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying inter alia for permission to amend the written statement.

(2.) THE brief background of the present case is that the plaintiff, who is the sister of the defendant, has instituted the accompanying suit for partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts against her brother, the defendant herein, praying inter alia that a decree of partition be passed, declaring her to be the 50% shareholder in the property bearing No.41, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi and 50% shareholder in the movable properties owned by the father of the parties, i.e., late Shri R.G.Nayar. Apart from the aforesaid relief, the plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the defendant.

(3.) MR . R.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant stated that the proposed amendment is bona fide and is sought to be incorporated in the written statement for giving effect to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act'). He submitted that the defendant had pleaded in paras 1 to 12 of the written statement that the grandfather of the parties, late Shri Lachhmandas Nayar had left a registered will that had been probated by the High Court of Bombay vide order dated 11.08.1972 passed in Probate Petition No.350/1969 and as per the said will, the immovable property had to vest in equal shares in favour of seven male members of the family of late Shri Lachhmandas Nayar. The father of the parties herein, Shri R.G. Nayar had got 1/7th undivided share in Shri Lachhmandas Nayar HUF and the income in his hand had accrued out of the immovable property that was left by late Shri Lachhmandas Nayar and further that Shri R.G. Nayar did not have his separate or independent income.