Court’s Power To Amend Decree Is Not Frozen In Time — It Must Correct Legal Course When Justice So Demands: Allahabad High Court Allows Amendment of Partition Decree

“Once an endowment is made to a Deity, ownership stands transferred to the Deity and unless and until the endowment is set aside, the Deity remains the owner of endowment so made” — In a pivotal ruling Allahabad High Court (per Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal) dismissed two writ petitions challenging the amendment of a preliminary decree in a long-running partition suit. The Court affirmed that a registered endowment deed executed in 1969 in favor of Bhagwan Mahavir Swami, although discovered only in 2017, must be legally recognized, resulting in exclusion of the endowed property from the partition.

The matter arose in Shiv Narayan Gupta v. Garib Chandra, under Article 227, where the Court firmly held that "the amendment of the preliminary decree cannot be opposed once the endowment stands and was not within the knowledge or possession of the plaintiff-respondent."

The litigation stemmed from a partition suit filed in 1995 between two brothers, Garib Chandra (plaintiff) and Shiv Narayan (defendant), both legal heirs of Ram Narayan. A preliminary decree dated 31.10.1995 declared each entitled to a half share in the family properties listed under Schedule A, B, C, and D.

However, when the plaintiff initiated final decree proceedings in 2005, a significant development altered the course of the case. In 2017, a tenant revealed the existence of a registered endowment deed dated 26.02.1969, whereby Smt. Sundi, the paternal grandaunt, had permanently endowed a portion of the suit property—specifically a shop listed in Schedule B—to Bhagwan Mahavir Swami for the upkeep of a temple she had built.

This discovery led to the plaintiff moving Application 45-A2 in 2018 for amendment of the preliminary decree, which the trial court allowed on 16.02.2024. The decree was modified to exclude the endowed property from the division.

The defendant contested the amendment, arguing that Smt. Sundi had already executed a sale deed in 1963 in favor of the parties, and thus had no authority to make the 1969 endowment. He further asserted that "only intervening events post-decree can justify an amendment", relying on precedents such as Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal and S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy.

But the Court found these arguments untenable. It emphasized that the endowment was registered, lawful, and still subsisting, and had not been set aside by any court.

Justice Agarwal noted: "The registered endowment deed of 1969 was not in the knowledge or possession of either of the parties. The petitioner has not raised any objection that it was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent and he had deliberately concealed the said fact when partition suit was filed."

Rejecting the defendant’s contention that pre-decree facts could not alter the legal share, the Court ruled: “The provision of Section 97 CPC or interpretation of the said provision by Hon’ble Apex Court does not restrict the power of the trial Court to amend the preliminary decree in case it necessitates to do justice between the parties.”

The Court drew strength from the Supreme Court’s observations in S. Satnam Singh v. Surender Kaur, which affirmed: “The Court may not have a suo motu power to amend a decree but the same would not mean that the Court cannot rectify a mistake. If a property was subject-matter of pleadings... it can, at a later stage, when pointed out, be amended.”

Rejecting both writ petitions, the Court concluded that the preliminary decree had been lawfully amended in light of the newly discovered but legally binding endowment. It reiterated: “Once an endowment is made to a Deity, ownership stands transferred to the Deity… The amendment of preliminary decree cannot be opposed.”

The Court further observed that the plaintiff had not withheld the document in bad faith and that a separate eviction suit by the Deity had already been initiated in 2022 against the occupiers of the shop.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 4107 of 2024 and, by consequence, Writ Petition No. 3458 of 2025, as both challenged interconnected proceedings.

“Court’s power to amend a decree is not frozen in time — It must correct legal course when justice so demands” — High Court Declares

Date of Decision: 30 May 2025