Somireddi Burrayya And Others v. Somireddi Atchayyamma .

Factual and Procedural Background

The civil revision petition raises whether a Court can allow amendment of the plaint schedule on the ground of mistake after a preliminary decree has been passed in a partition suit.

The respondent (plaintiff in the original suit) filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a one-third share in the plaint-schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 27-10-1952 and a Commissioner was appointed to partition the properties. The Commissioner encountered obstruction in relation to one item described as S. No. 171.

The plaintiff subsequently petitioned to substitute a different item (items included in S. Nos. 51/1, 52/2, 52/3 and 83) for S. No. 171, alleging that S. No. 171 had been mentioned by mistake as part of the joint family properties. This substitution was opposed on the ground that the property sought to be substituted was not joint family property but the stridhana of the defendants. The trial Court overruled the objection and allowed the application. The present civil revision petition challenges that order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a Court has jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the plaint schedule on the ground of mistake after a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit.
2. Whether the learned Subordinate Judge could substitute one item of property for another without deciding on the objection as to the character of the property (i.e., whether it belongs to the joint family or is the stridhana of the petitioner).

Arguments of the Parties

Revision Petitioner / Counsel (Mr. Suryaprakasam)

• Argued that after the preliminary decree is passed the Court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to allow any amendment.
• Relied on Order 20, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in support of the contention that amendment is not permissible after the preliminary decree.

Plaintiff (Applicant in the original suit)

• Filed a petition to substitute items included in S. Nos. 51/1, 52/2, 52/3 and 83 for S. No. 171, alleging S. No. 171 had been mentioned by mistake as part of the joint family properties.

Defendants / Opponents at Trial

• Objected to the substitution on the ground that the property sought to be substituted was not joint family property but was the stridhana property of the defendants.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Jadhunath v. Parameswar, AIR 1940 PC 11 (A)	Authority for the position that until the suit reaches the stage of final decree the proceedings remain pending and the Court remains in seisin to permit amendments.	The Court relied on this authority to support its view that a Court can allow amendments while proceedings (in a partition suit) remain pending prior to the final decree.
Latchayya v. Seethamma, AIR 1932 Mad 275 (B)	Supports competence to allow amendment where the suit is not concluded by the final decree and is only at the stage of a preliminary decree.	The Court cited this case as additional authority that amendment may be permitted where only a preliminary decree has been passed and the suit has not concluded.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first rejected reliance on Order 20, Rule 3 of the CPC for the question at hand, holding that the proper focus is Section 153 and Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC.

The Court quoted and construed Section 153 (which permits amendment of any defect or error in any proceeding at any time for the purpose of determining the real question or issue) and Order 6, Rule 17 (which permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings on just terms to determine the real questions in controversy). From these provisions the Court concluded that:

• The rules empower a Court to allow amendment of pleadings so long as the Court is in seisin of the proceedings; and
• Until the suit reaches the stage of a final decree, the proceedings are to be regarded as pending and the Court may permit amendments in proper cases.

The Court applied precedents (Jadhunath v. Parameswar and Latchayya v. Seethamma) to reinforce the conclusion that amendments can be permitted after a preliminary decree so long as the suit is not finally concluded.

The Court emphasized that whether an amendment should be allowed in a particular case is a matter for the trial Court to decide in the exercise of its discretion, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and potential infringement of third-party rights.

Applying these principles to the present matter, the Court found that the learned Subordinate Judge had not addressed the central factual question raised by the objection—whether the property sought to be substituted was joint family property or stridhana. Because the trial Judge did not decide that issue on the merits before ordering the substitution, the appellate Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for determination on the merits, permitting either party to adduce evidence on the character of the property.

Holding and Implications

Petition allowed; the order permitting substitution is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for decision on the merits.

Implications:

• The Court held that Section 153 and Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC confer jurisdiction to allow amendments to pleadings even after a preliminary decree has been passed, provided the suit has not reached final decree and the case is otherwise appropriate for amendment.
• Whether an amendment should be permitted remains a discretionary determination for the trial Court, with attention to facts, circumstances and the rights of third parties.
• In this specific case the practical consequence is that the Subordinate Judge must decide on the character of the property (joint family property or stridhana) on the merits; either party may lead evidence; costs were directed to abide the result.