CHANDRA PRABHA Vs. SATISH C SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC the Plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint. It is the case of the Plaintiff that from the issues framed on legal advice it has come to its notice that there are some deficiencies in the drafting of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit one of the Defendants Bawa Daan Singh, Defendant No. 4 died, who had been impleaded as legal representative of Bawa Milkha Singh one of the five trustees appointed. The only relief sought against Bawa Milkha Singh was an order directing him to produce such accounts and other records relating to the Trust, as may have fallen into his possession on the death of his father-in-law. Since law does not permit substitution by another legal representative of the original legal representative, the name of Bawa Daan Singh was ordered to be deleted without any substitution and thus the same has necessitated consequential and incidental modification in the plaint. By the proposed amendment the Plaintiff seeks to omit Paragraphs 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 in the original plaint and add amended paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12. The prayer clause is also sought to be amended to improve its conformability in an administration suit.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff is that late Pandit Mulchand Sharma, father of the Plaintiff died on 25th December, 1939, leaving behind five minor surviving children and his widow. Late Pandit Mulchand Sharma executed an instrument in the form of a Will on 10th December, 1937 which came into operation on the date of his death, that is, 25th December, 1939. The said instrument was in fact a Trust in terms of Section 59 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 which inter alia declared that his entire estate consisting of movable and immovable properties shall vest on his death in five trustees named therein who shall act jointly to manage it for the benefit of the minor children and widow. It is further stated that the document dated 28th May, 1941 filed in Suit No. 2166/1990 was neither the original copy of Will much less a certified copy of the original Will proved before the Probate Court registered and deposited with the Registrar of Wills maintained by the District Judge, Delhi in accordance with the provisions of Section 294 of Indian Succession Act. The instrument had been kept concealed from the Plaintiff till the middle of the year 1993. It is further alleged that after obtaining the probate the trustees misused the same for their ulterior motives and not for the purpose for which it was granted. The trustees started transferring the property to the main beneficiaries soon after the Plaintiff attained the majority. Though the issues have been framed, however since the amendments are essential the same be permitted to be carried out. Reliance is placed on Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K. Modi and others, 2006 AIR(SC) 1647 and Mangal Dass Sant Ram Gauba vs. Union of India and others, 1973 AIR(Del) 96.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.