When Time Runs Out: The High Stakes of Amending Wills and Legal Admissions.


06 November 2024 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Wills/Trusts >> Family Law  

In a recent case of Vinti Mehrotra & Others v/s Kumar Vaibhav & Others, the Delhi High Court examined the scope and limitations of amendments to pleadings in civil suits under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The case highlights the importance of time limitations and the risks of amending pleadings to introduce time-barred claims, particularly when dealing with wills and succession disputes.

Background:

The plaintiffs in the case filed a suit seeking partition of a 1/6th undivided share in a property owned by the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) "S.K. Khanna and Sons" in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit property and sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by the defendant, transferring a part of the property to another party, was null and void. The suit was initially filed on 14th February 2022.

 

 

However, in a twist, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint to challenge a will allegedly executed by their late relative, Shri Sharwan Kumar Khanna, on 26th December 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that the will was forged and sought a declaration that it was invalid. This challenge came to light only after the plaintiffs were made aware of the will in 2017, though the defendants contended that the plaintiffs were aware of its existence since at least 2014.

Legal Arguments:

Plaintiffs’ Argument:

The plaintiffs argued that they had only become aware of the will's existence in August 2017, when they were provided with a photocopy by one of the defendants. They sought to amend their plaint to include a prayer declaring the will void, citing that the will was forged and could not be relied upon for property succession.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs highlighted that the issues in the suit had not yet been framed and that the amendment would not alter the nature of the proceedings. They also cited the lack of any formal challenge to the will in the original plaint filed in 2022 and emphasized that the amendment was necessary for the fair adjudication of the dispute over the suit property.

Defendants’ Argument:

On the other hand, the defendants opposed the amendment on the grounds that the plaintiffs were well aware of the will's existence much earlier than claimed. They provided several pieces of evidence to substantiate their claim, including a letter written by plaintiff no. 1 in June 2014 acknowledging the will, as well as emails exchanged in 2016 and 2017 where the will's existence was confirmed.

The defendants also pointed out that the plaintiffs had signed a declaration-cum-indemnity bond in August 2017, which acknowledged the validity of the will. Given these facts, they argued that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the will for several years but had consciously elected not to challenge it. Therefore, they contended that the challenge was time-barred under the Limitation Act of 1963, which mandates that disputes regarding the validity of a will must be raised within three years of acquiring knowledge of the will’s existence.

Court’s Analysis:

The court, after considering the arguments of both parties, concluded that the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the will's existence at least by 2014, based on the documentary evidence presented by the defendants. It noted that the plaintiffs had made clear admissions regarding the will and its contents in various communications over the years, including their written acknowledgment in the 2017 declaration.

The court referred to previous rulings, including those by the Supreme Court, which held that if a claim is time-barred, it cannot be allowed through an amendment to the pleadings. The judgment also emphasized that a claim challenging a will must be made within three years from the date of knowledge, as per Article 56 of the Limitation Act. Since the plaintiffs had not raised any challenge to the will within this period, their proposed amendment was barred by limitation.

Furthermore, the court noted that introducing the challenge to the will would effectively change the nature of the original suit, which was initially filed for partition of the property in the plaintiffs’ capacity as co-parceners in the HUF, not as legal heirs challenging the succession under the will.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the application for amendment, stating that the proposed challenge to the will was time-barred and that allowing the amendment would deprive the defendants of their accrued right. The court’s decision highlights the importance of adhering to the time limits prescribed under the Limitation Act and the potential consequences of attempting to amend pleadings to introduce time-barred claims.

This case serves as a reminder that while amendments to pleadings are generally allowed to ensure the proper adjudication of the matter, they cannot be used to introduce claims that are otherwise barred by limitation. Legal practitioners must carefully consider the limitation periods when seeking to amend pleadings, particularly in disputes involving wills and succession.

  Limitation Act, 1963