Raj Kumar Bhatia vs Subhash Chander Bhatia

On 11 October 2002, Sharda Rani Bhatia instituted a suit for the recovery of Reason: possession, arrears of damages and mesne profits against the appellant. The 2 property in dispute is situated on the first floor at 1/6 Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the original plaintiff is that Desh Raj Bhatia acquired the leasehold rights on 13 February 1962. On his death, his children are stated to have relinquished their rights and interest in favour of their mother, Lajwanti Bhatia. She executed a will bequeathing the property to her son Ratan Lal Bhatia who is stated to have become the exclusive owner of the property on her death. The original plaintiff, Sharda Rani Bhatia is the widow of Ratan Lal Bhatia. The appellant is the son of Ratan Lal Bhatia. Ratan Lal Bhatia died intestate. On his death, a registered deed of relinquishment was executed in favour of Sharda Rani Bhatia by the appellant and the respondent, the sons of Ratan Lal Bhatia and by Shakti Bhatia in favour of their mother. The original plaintiff is stated to have permitted the appellant and the respondent to reside along with her in the property. The suit was filed by Sharda Rani Bhatia for recovery of possession from the appellant and for consequential relief. The original plaintiff is stated to have executed a deed of gift in favour of the respondent in 2003 after which he was impleaded as co-plaintiff. The original plaintiff died in 2005 and the suit is being pursued by the respondent. 3 The appellant filed his written statement in the suit on 22 February 2003. According to the appellant, the respondent had exercised undue influence in obtaining the deed of relinquishment. According to him, parties had lived together jointly even after the alleged relinquishment. The appellant claims that an oral understanding was arrived at by which he was to occupy the first and second floors 3 together with the terrace whereas the respondent was to occupy the ground floor exclusively and their mother was to live on the ground floor or, with any of her sons, as she desired. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the family arrangement was acted upon and the appellant is in occupation of the first and second floors together with the terrace while the respondent is in possession of the ground floor. 4 Issues were framed on 14 August 2003. The respondent moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint on 7 February 2013, which was allowed on 21 September 2013. The appellant filed a written statement to the amended plaint. The appellant filed an application for amendment of the written statement in March 2016, which was opposed by the respondent. The Trial Court allowed the application by an order dated 11 April 2016.

24. That it is an admitted position that on the death of Ratan Lal Bhatia, he was survived by his widow Shara Rani Bhatia, plaintiff No. 2, Subhash Chander Bhatia, defendant Raj Kumar Bhatia and one daughter namely Smt. Shakti Rani Bhatia and one daughter namely Smt Sakshi Rani Bhatia and the plaintiff No. 2, defendant and their sister was also having their two children. It is undisputed position that Ratan Lal Bhatia died intestate and the assets as well as the properties left behind by him stands inherited equally in the name of his legal heir and thus the properties left behind by Ratan Lal Bhatia become the coparcenary property for the rights of the grand children of Ratan Lal Bhatia. It is submitted that the grand children of Ratan Lal Bhatia have derived their coparcenary rights in the properties left behind by Ratan Lal Bhatia. Meaning thereby in case of plaintiff No. 2, although he derived 1/4th share in the suit property but legally his own son and daughter being coparcener then his share shall be terms as 1/12th each and likewise the share of defendant which he derived as 1/4 th on the death of his father shall also be deemed as 1/12th each with his two sons and the share of Sharda Rani Bhatia which she derived as 1/4th is also to be legally deemed as 1/12th each alongwith her sons and daughter.

12 In the view which we have taken, it has not become necessary to consider the alternative submission of the appellant namely, that recourse taken to the jurisdiction under Article 227 by the respondent after filing an application for review before the Trial Court was misconceived. Since the matter has been argued on merits, we have dealt with the rival submissions.

13 Hence, on a conspectus of the facts and having due regard to the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 227 which the High Court purported to exercise, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The order passed by the Trial Court allowing the amendment of the written statement is accordingly affirmed.

14 There shall in the circumstances be no order as to costs.

..................................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA] …...............................................J [A. M. KHANWILKAR] ..................................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi December 15, 2017