*1* chs.770.10.nms.1200.10.s.1098.10 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.770 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1200 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.1098 OF 2010 Ashok Kumar Maheshwari. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Vishal Kumar Maheshwari and others. ..Defendants .......... Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b B.H.Vyas & Ashutosh Khandeparkar, for the Plaintif. Mr.Harinder Toor a/w Levi Ruben and K.Akhter i/b Vigil Juris, for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Mr.V.Bhaskaran a/w M.B.Nair, for the Defendant No.3. Mr.D.D.Madan, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Virendra Perina, Devika Nigade i/b Divya Shah & Associates, for the Respondent in Chamber Summons. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 16th December, 2010. P.C. 1 This Chamber Summons seeks amendment of the plaint. 2 The Plaintiff instituted a suit against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the Defendant No.3 Society. The Defendant No.1 is Plaintiff's son and the Defendant No.2 is daughter born from the previous marriage of the Plaintiff's wife. The Plaintiff has stated that he married one Mrs.Louize in the year 1967. At that time, Mrs.Louize had already four daughters from the previous wedlock. She came with children to cohabit and reside with the Plaintiff. The Defendant No.1 was born in the year 1968. It is stated by the Plaintiff that the suit flat was purchased under the *2* chs.770.10.nms.1200.10.s.1098.10 agreement for sale in the year 1969 in the name of Plaintiff's wife out of natural love and affection. At the time of purchase, the Defendant No.1 was only one and half year old. After setting out as to how consideration was paid and the flat was acquired, it is stated that as far as his wife's four daughters are concerned, they have no right in the property acquired by the Plaintiff in the name of his wife. These four daughters were not adopted by the Plaintiff. The Defendant No.2, therefore, also does not have any such rights. Merely because the children from the previous marriage were allowed to reside in the flat that does not confer any right in their favour. As far as the Defendant No.2 is concerned, it is stated that the wife of Plaintiff had some ailments which were treated but during all this illness, wife was looked after by him and no expenses were ever met by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. In these circumstances, it is alleged that the gift deeds dated 28.06.2004 executed in favour of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not binding upon the Plaintiff, therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration that the flat was purchased in the name of wife but the Plaintiff is entitled to inherit the suit flat. This Chamber Summons seeks to insert a plea that the Plaintiff is the real owner of the suit flat and that his wife was ostensible owner only as the flat was purchased by the Plaintiff in the name of his wife out of natural love and affection. 3 This Chamber Summons is opposed by the original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Toor, learned counsel appearing on their behalf, submits that the declaration claimed with regard to the ownership of Plaintiff and the wife being ostensible owner completely changes the cause of action. Mr.Toor further submits that the Respondent, proposed Defendant, is sought to be joined because the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant No.3 Society might go for redevelopment of the property and the proposed Defendant is engaged as developer. Therefore, according to *3* chs.770.10.nms.1200.10.s.1098.10 the Plaintiff, it may be that the developer along with the Society is proper party but Mr.Toor submits that presently there is no agreement of redevelopment with the Respondent and hence, all amendments are pre- mature. 4 Mr.Madan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, submits that there are negotiations and likelihood of agreement being executed between the Society and the proposed Defendant in future but instead of joining the developer, this Court can protect the interest of both sides by appointing the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as a Receiver who will take symbolic possession of the suit property and handover possession thereof for redevelopment and thereafter, execute an agreement with the Respondent on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 for permanent alternate accommodation, without prejudice to their rights and contentions but subject to outcome of the suit. 5 This course is not acceptable to the Plaintiff as also the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The affidavit in reply of the Defendant No.3 is also placed before me. 6 After hearing the learned counsel at some length and perusing with their assistance the Chamber Summons and the Schedule thereto, I am of the view that the Chamber Summons deserves to be allowed. The amendments have to be granted liberally and these liberal principles have to be applied, all the more, when the amendments assist the Court in resolving the controversy. If the amendments are necessary for completely and effectively resolving the controversy, all the more, they deserved to be granted. There is no substance in the contention that the cause of action would completely change because the Plaintiff seeks declaration of his ownership. If the entire plaint is perused, it is apparent *4* chs.770.10.nms.1200.10.s.1098.10 that after impugning the gift deeds, what the Plaintiff is essentially seeking is a declaration of his ownership. That is consequential to the prayer whereby he seeks quashing of the gift deeds, therefore, such consequential amendments deserve to be allowed and all the more when the pleadings of his ownership have been set out in detail. As far as impleadment of the Respondent (Developer) is concerned, the plaint itself narrates that the property might be redeveloped by the Society and that process is going on, which is apparent from the statement made by Mr.Madan on instructions from the proposed Defendant. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused if the joinder is permitted and when presence of all parties including the Society and the Developer will assist this Court in completely and effectively resolving the controversy and passing a binding decree. 7 For all these reasons and keeping open all the contentions of parties, so also, the plea of maintainability of the suit, this Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendments be carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Notice of Motion be listed after the amendments are carried out. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)