Dismissal Without Trial Is Impermissible Where Coparcenary Claims Raise Triable Issues: Delhi High Court Restores Partition Suit, Allows Amendment

“A suit cannot be dismissed on a legal assumption or prior compromise without permitting parties to lead evidence” – In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of fair adjudication and the procedural rights of litigants, the Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a long-pending partition suit involving ancestral property claims and coparcenary rights under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while deciding FAO, held that the learned Single Judge erred in summarily dismissing both the plaint and the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, without permitting the plaintiffs to lead evidence on material factual assertions.

The Court allowed both appeals, restored the suit to its original number, and permitted the amendment of pleadings subject to a cost of ₹25,000, to be paid to the defendants. The parties were directed to appear before the learned Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 11 November 2025.

“Delay Alone Does Not Justify Denial of Amendment If Trial Has Not Commenced” – Court Rejects Mechanical Application of Order VI Rule 17

The core issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiffs, descendants of one Late Shri Bhadra Sen, could be denied the opportunity to amend their plaint to elaborate their coparcenary rights and details of property situated in Rajasthan, merely because the suit had been pending since 2002 and the application for amendment was filed in 2011.

The Single Judge had held that the amendment was barred by the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. However, the Division Bench decisively rejected this reasoning, holding:

“The trial of the suit had not yet commenced, as the issues were framed on 25.01.2010. Though Plaintiff No. 1 filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, the same has not been tendered in evidence. Therefore, the bar under the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not apply.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 302, the Court reiterated that where the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy and causes no prejudice, it should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

“Coparcenary Under Mitakshara Law Is a Factual Issue Requiring Evidence” – Dismissal of Suit Without Trial Held Unsustainable

The Single Judge had dismissed the suit on two legal grounds: first, that the property inherited by a male after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force is to be treated as self-acquired, and second, that there was a judicial admission by one of the defendants in prior litigation accepting the properties as self-acquired.

The Division Bench firmly rejected this approach, observing:

“The suit raised arguable questions of fact and law regarding the nature of properties and formation of coparcenary. It was not appropriate for the learned Single Judge to dismiss the suit without permitting the parties to lead evidence.”

It further emphasized that the question whether a property retained its ancestral character or formed part of a Hindu coparcenary depends on several factual elements, including the origin of the property, its treatment in the family, and how it was utilized over time. These issues, the Court held, require trial and cannot be summarily decided at the threshold.

“Judicial Admission by One Defendant Does Not Bind All Co-plaintiffs or Disqualify Suit” – Court Rejects Preclusion Argument

The respondents had argued that since Defendant No. 1, through whom the plaintiffs claim title, had admitted in a previous suit (Suit No. 858/1987) that the properties were self-acquired by Late Bhadra Sen, the present suit was barred by such an admission.

The Court rejected this submission, stating:

“The compromise in Suit No. 858/1987 cannot bind the plaintiffs who were not parties to the said suit. The coparcenary is a creation of law and not of agreement. Plaintiffs’ independent right by birth to seek partition cannot be defeated merely by a compromise decree signed by some family members.”

The Court also noted that the existence of a Will by Late Bhadra Sen, which disposed of multiple properties, made it necessary to ascertain through evidence whether such disposition was valid, especially if a coparcenary existed at the relevant time.

“Procedural Defects and Interim Relief Cannot Override Substantive Rights” – Court Criticizes Unwarranted Cost Condition

The Single Judge had further dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were unwilling to deposit ₹10 lakhs as a condition to continue the suit, and linked the rejection of amendment to the subsistence of an interim order.

Terming this imposition of conditional cost as premature and unjustified, the Division Bench observed:

“Such a direction, issued prior to the determination of the Amendment Application, was premature and without jurisdiction, as the question of costs could only arise upon a conclusive finding on the maintainability or merits of the suit.”

Additionally, the Court clarified that procedural defects in the plaint—such as lack of Khasra numbers for agricultural land—could be rectified by amendment, and cannot be a ground for outright dismissal of the entire suit.

“Pleadings Must Contain Material Facts, Not Evidence” – High Court Reaffirms Distinction Under Order VI Rule 2 CPC

Addressing the reasoning that the plaint lacked material particulars, the Court cited Order VI Rule 2 CPC, reiterating that only material facts, and not detailed evidence, are required to be pleaded.

The plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded that the family was governed by Mitakshara law, that the properties originated from ancestral compensation received in 1911, and that a coparcenary was formed upon the birth of a great-grandson in 1988. These pleadings, the Court held, raised triable issues and deserved to be tested through evidence.

Suit Restored, Amendment Allowed, Cost Imposed

Summing up its findings, the Delhi High Court held that the rejection of the plaint and amendment application was legally unsustainable, and the plaintiffs were entitled to adjudication on merits. The Court directed restoration of the suit with liberty to amend the plaint upon payment of ₹25,000 as cost, and listed the matter before the Roster Bench on 11 November 2025.

The judgment is a resounding affirmation of the right to a fair trial, especially in civil disputes involving complex questions of coparcenary, ancestral property, and family law.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025