The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to amend the plaint. The petitioner sought to alter facts regarding the timing of her adoption to declare herself a legal heir and owner of the suit property.
the Civil Revision petition filed by Meena Kumari was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 2833 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2833 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.5.2012
Meena Kumari
.. Petitioner
v.
General Public and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. K. S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V. K. Shukla, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is before this court aggrieved against the order dated 13.4.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by her for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.
The suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and is entitled to get the same transferred in her name in the municipal record being legal heir of Kishan Kaur widow of Basakha Singh on the basis of registered adoption deed dated 25.5.1982. In the suit, it was pleaded that after the death of Basakha Singh, Kishan Kaur had adopted the petitionerplaintiff on 25.5.1980 and the adoption deed was registered on 25.5.1982. Kishan Kaur died intestate on 6.7.1993. The amendment was sought to the effect that Kishan Kaur and Basakha Singh adopted the plaintiff on 25.5.1980. Basakha Singh had consented for the adoption. The adoption deed was executed on 25.5.1982 after the death of Basakha Singh on 31.12.1980. The application having been rejected by the court below, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of amendment, only a typographical error in the plaint was sought to be
Civil Revision No. 2833 of 2010 [2]
corrected. The same will not change the nature of the suit. No evidence is required to be led. The only amendment is to the extent that adoption was made during the life time of Basakha Singh, though inadvertently it was mentioned in the plaint initially filed that after the death of Basakha Singh, the petitioner had been adopted.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the amendment sought to be made was already within the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff when the suit was filed. The suit was filed on 31.8.2001. It is unnecessarily being delayed by the petitionerplaintiff. It was at the stage of arguments when the application in question was filed. Even in the adoption deed, it is mentioned that the petitioner was adopted by Kishan Kaur after the death of her husband. He submitted that in fact the documents were created only for the purpose of immigration of the petitioner. When these were submitted with Canadian High Commission, the same were rejected as no one could be adopted above the age of 15 years. As adoption has to be by the parents, the same was not legally sustainable. He further submitted that even in the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner, which is dated 1.10.1984, name of her father is mentioned as Mahinder Singh, who is the natural father of the petitioner, even though it is claimed that she had been given in adoption on 25.5.1980. He further submitted that once Basakha Singh and Kishan Kaur already had a son, who was also adopted way back in the year 1955, there was no good reason for them to have adopted any other child. The amendment in the plaint is only to fill in the lacuna, which should not be allowed at this stage.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book.
The relevant facts are that the suit was filed by the petitionerplaintiff on 31.8.2001. The application in question for amendment of the plaint was filed on 27.1.2010, i.e., more than 8 years after the filing of the suit when the same was at the conclusion stage. Even though it is claimed that the petitioner was adopted on 25.5.1980 and the adoption deed was registered on 25.5.1982, but the fact remains that Basakha Singh died on 31.12.1980 and even Kishan Kaur died on 6.7.1993. As to why the suit was filed for declaring the petitioner as owner of the property left by deceased Kishan Kaur in the year 2001 is not very satisfactorily explained in the suit.
Civil Revision No. 2833 of 2010 [3]
A perusal of the adoption deed, which was executed on 25.5.1982, shows that deceased-Kishan Kaur mentioned therein that she did not have a daughter and her husband had died, so she had taken into her laps the petitioner for which religious ceremonies were performed on 25.5.1980. What is sought to be pleaded by way of amendment is that the petitioner was adopted by Kishan Kaur and Basakha Singh had duly consented for her adoption, which runs contrary to the averments in the adoption deed. Further, the fact that the documents were submitted to Canadian High Commission for immigration of the petitioner and the rejection thereof is also relevant if considered in the light of the contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the documents were prepared only for the purpose of immigration of the petitioner to Canada. Still further, Matriculation certificate of the petitioner dated 1.10.1984 also shows the petitioner as daughter of Mahinder Singh, her natural father, even though she had passed out the examination after the alleged deed of adoption.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
mk
14.5.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an amendment to the plaint correcting the timing of adoption can be allowed at a late stage of the suit.
Whether the proposed amendment contradicts the averments in the adoption deed and other evidence.
Meena Kumari
General Public
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
