Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from three suits concerning property bearing No.D-34, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Initially, the appellants' mother filed Suit No.316/88 for perpetual injunction to restrain Dr. Shanti Mathur and others from alienating the property. Subsequently, the appellants filed a suit on 1.12.1988 for partition and separate possession of 1/4 and 3/4 shares respectively. Later, Suit No.30/90 was filed for a declaration that Dr. Shanti Mathur was a benamidar and the property belonged to the joint family, hence she had no right, title or interest. An application was made in the trial court to try issue No.7 as a preliminary issue. The matter had earlier reached the Supreme Court, which directed the trial court to try the issues regardless of deficiency in pleadings, specifically whether Dr. Shanti Mathur was a benamidar and whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would stand in the way. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to plead that Dr. Shanti Mathur was a trustee on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs and members of the joint family. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the application. The appellants contended that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit or cause of action and that even inconsistent pleadings could be raised at any stage; they argued that Dr. Shanti Mathur stood in a fiduciary capacity as trustee and the circumstances of purchase were already pleaded. The respondent argued that given the earlier Supreme Court direction to dispose of issue No.7 as a preliminary issue regardless of deficiency, the court was bound to proceed; the appellants were delaying proceedings with inconsistent pleas and the amendment would alter the nature and character of the suit. The Supreme Court held that it was open to the appellants, even without amendment, to press arguments based on the legal effect of the benami transaction and that Dr. Shanti Mathur was a trustee of the property for the benefit of the joint family. No express amendment was required. The court therefore dismissed the appeal without costs, leaving the court below free to proceed with trial or dispose of preliminary issue No.7 in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Necessity of Amendment - Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellants sought amendment of plaint to plead that the respondent was a trustee on behalf of the joint family, in addition to earlier plea of benami transaction - The Court held that no express amendment is required because the legal effect of a benami transaction can be argued without amendment; the appellants could press their arguments that the respondent held property as trustee for the benefit of the joint family - Held that the High Court rightly refused the amendment as it was unnecessary. B) Benami Transactions - Legal Effect of Benami Transaction - Trustee for Joint Family - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - The Court noted that even without amendment, the appellants could rely on the legal effect of the benami transaction to argue that the respondent was a trustee - The court below was directed to proceed with trial or dispose of preliminary issue No.7 in accordance with law - Held that no express amendment is required to raise this legal contention.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in refusing to permit the appellants to amend the plaint to plead that Dr. Shanti Mathur was a trustee on behalf of the joint family despite earlier pleading of benami transaction?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without costs. It held that no express amendment is required for the appellants to argue that Dr. Shanti Mathur is a trustee of the property for the benefit of the joint family based on the legal effect of the benami transaction. The court below was left free to proceed with trial or dispose of preliminary issue No.7 in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act
- 1988
- legal effect of benami transaction
- trustee for joint family
- no express amendment required
- preliminary issue disposal
