M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.
Background
The appellant and four others filed a 1993 partition suit over joint family properties, and shortly afterward tried to have it dismissed through a compromise claiming the family had already divided the properties in 1972: a compromise that other family members, who had been left out of the suit, successfully challenged in the High Court, leading to the suit being restored. Years later, after the suit had proceeded through extensive evidence and was finally listed for arguments, the original plaintiffs applied in 2008 to amend their plaint to plead the very 1972 partition theory their earlier compromise had relied on: directly contradicting their own suit's claim that no partition had taken place. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the Karnataka High Court set that order aside, leading to this appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an amendment to pleadings cannot be allowed as a matter of right, particularly once trial has commenced, and the party seeking it must show that due diligence would not have let them raise the point earlier: a burden the appellant failed to meet given the 15-year delay and the fact that he had known of the alleged 1972 partition since the suit was filed. The Court found the proposed amendment was not bona fide, would fundamentally change the nature and character of the suit by letting the plaintiffs withdraw their own earlier admission that no partition had occurred, and would cause serious prejudice to the respondent, who had spent years litigating on the basis that the properties remained undivided. The Court therefore upheld the High Court's order rejecting the amendment and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will not allow a party to amend their case late in litigation,especially once evidence has already been recorded,to introduce a fundamentally contradictory claim they could have raised at the outset; genuine diligence and good faith are prerequisites for permitting such amendments.