Moideen s/o Nellissery Mohammed v. Razia @ Thankam Nellissery Veettil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2017/12TH ASHADHA, 1939 OP (FC).No. 49 of 2017 (R) --------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/11/16 IN IA NO.2914/2016 IN OP 1068/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA) PETITIONER(S): ------------- MOIDEEN S/O.NELLISSERY MOHAMMED, VAZHAPILLY DESOM, VARANTHARAPILLY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------- RAZIA @ THANKAM NELLISSERY VEETTIL, D/O.KOLATHUPARAMBIL KUNJAYYAPPAN, VARANTHARAPILLY VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHALAKUDY TALUK - 680 121. R1 BY ADV. SMT.S.ANJUSHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.C.MENON R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-032017, THE COURT ON 03-07-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (FC).No. 49 of 2017 (R) --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF OP 1068/14 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO OP 1068/14 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF IA 2914/16 FILED IN OP 1068/14 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED TO IA 2914/16 IN OP 1068/14 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2016 IN IA 2914/16 IN OP 1068/14 BY THE FAMILY COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------- Rp //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.** =========================== OP(FC) No. 49 of 2017 ================== Dated this, the 3[rd] day of July, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ This Original petition is filed challenging order dated 16/11/2016 in IA No.2914/16 in OP No. 1068/14 of the Family Court Irinjalakuda by which an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed on payment of cost of `1,000/-. The respondent in IA No.2914/2016 has challenged the impugned order by filing the above original petition. 2. The short facts involved in the case are as under:- OP No.1068/14 has been filed by the respondent seeking for a decree to declare that she is having half right over the properties covered by document No.1427/1993 of Kodaly SRO and also seeking a decree to cancel document No.186/2013, the deed of assignment executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. OP(FC) No.49/17 -:2:- 3. Respondent contends that she was a Hindu by birth and she got converted to Muslim faith and married the petitioner. According to her, she was employed in Gulf countries and utilizing her earnings, she purchased the petition schedule properties. However, in the document the property was purchased in the joint names of the couple. Later, with an intention to secure bank loan for the purpose of constructing a house and on the request made by the petitioner herein, she executed a deed of assignment in the year 2013 relinquishing her rights over the property in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that it was on account of the undue influence of the petitioner upon her that she had executed the assignment in the year 2013. Ext.P1 is the copy of the original petition. 4. Petitioner herein entered appearance and filed his objection inter alia denying the allegations raised. According to him, the property was purchased with his own funds. However, on the request made by the respondent, the same was purchased in their joint names. He contended that the respondent does not have any right or interest in the properties. 5. Ext.P2 is the objection. Ext.P3 is a copy of IA OP(FC) No.49/17 -:3:- No.2914/2016 filed by the respondent seeking to amend the original petition. By virtue of the amendment, she sought for deleting para 20 in the original petition wherein she has stated that her right to seek for a declaration for cancellation of the deed of assignment No.1427/1993 is hopelessly barred by limitation. She also sought to incorporate a relief stating that she is the absolute owner of the entire extent of the property. Petitioner filed counter affidavit as Ext.P4. It is inter alia contended that the amendment virtually changes the nature and character of the original petition. A right which has already been relinquished is now sought to be claimed by incorporating a relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court did not consider the objections in the proper perspective. Family Court only proceeded on the basis that the application is highly belated but the consequence of the amendment as to whether it changes the nature and character of the Original Petition was not considered by the Family Court and therefore the matter requires fresh consideration. 6. Ext.P3 is the application for amendment. In Ext.P3 the respondent sought for deletion of para 20 and to incorporate OP(FC) No.49/17 -:4:- another paragraph. In para 21, the request is for deleting the statement that she was having one half right in respect of property covered by document No.1427/1993 of Kodaly sub Registry. The amendment in para 22 is only a clerical mistake. In para 23, the respondent sought for deleting prayer (A) and for incorporating another relief and sought for adding one more relief. The relief sought for is for a declaration that the property covered by document No.1427/1993 was purchased by the respondent in her own name and name of the petitioner was also incorporated in the document No.1427/1993 and that no transfer had taken place as per document No.183/2013 and that she had not received any consideration for the same and she alone is the owner of the property. The additional relief sought for is for injunction from committing waste or from creating any obstruction for possession of petition schedule property by the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others**_ [(2015) 10 SCC 203]. In the above judgment, the Apex court held that by amendment of OP(FC) No.49/17 -:5:- pleadings, admission made in the pleadings should not be permitted to withdrawn by amendment. Paras 20, 22 and 23 of the judgment are relevant, which read as under:- _**“20.** On amendments generally, in the decision reported in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, after referring to Gautam Sarup, the principles on amendment have been summarised at para 63. It has been held as follows: (Revajeetu Builders case, SCC p. 102)_ _“63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:_ _(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;_ _(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;_ _(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;_ _(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;_ _(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and_ _(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application._ _These are some of the important factors which may_ OP(FC) No.49/17 -:6:- _be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.”_ _**“22.** Delay in itself may not be crucial on an application for amendment in a written statement, be it for introduction of a new fact or for explanation or clarification of an admission or for taking an alternate position. It is seen that the issues have been framed in the case before us, only in 2009. The nature and character of the amendment and the other circumstances as in the instant case which we have referred to above, are relevant while considering the delay and its consequence on the application for amendment. But a party cannot be permitted to wholly withdraw the admission in the pleadings, as held by this Court in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam. To quote para 27: (SCC pp. 251-52)_ _“27. From a conspectus of the cases cited at the Bar, the principle that emerges is, that if at the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the Court, on the basis of which, the Court could[*] be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape either of evidence recorded or produced in the case, or, it may partly or wholly be in the shape of an express or implied_ OP(FC) No.49/17 -:7:- _admission made in the compromise agreement, itself. Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.”_ _(emphasis supplied)_ _**23.** We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava, does not reflect the correct legal position and it is overruled.”_ 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in _**Belcita Vincent Gomez v. Vincent Gomez**_ [2013 (4) KHC 748 (DB)], wherein this Court had occasion to consider the question whether there is any bar of limitation when a suit is filed for declaration of title and OP(FC) No.49/17 -:8:- recovery of possession of the property. It was held that, if by conduct of parties and due to fiduciary relationship, a trust is created between husband and wife, Section 10 of the Limitation Act has application and there is no time limit to file suit. It is therefore contended that the amendment is only having a legal consequence. Initially, respondent proceeded on the basis that she could only have half right of the property and the claim in respect of the other half is barred by limitation. It is rather clear that there was no such limitation especially on account of the fact that the property was purchased in the name of both the parties and the respondent was made a party and the petitioner was made a co-owner in trust and on behalf of the respondent taking into account the fiduciary relationship with the parties. It is also contended that the pleadings in the case clearly disclose the fact that she had expended the entire amount for purchasing the property. 9. In para 8 of the original petition, it is stated that the respondent was working in Gulf from 1986 to 1993 and when she had come back in 1993, using her savings and the amount received from LIC, a property was purchased in the joint names of OP(FC) No.49/17 -:9:- the petitioner and respondent as per document No.1427/1993. Further, in para 12, it is alleged that as insisted by the petitioner and proceeding on the _bonafide_ belief that the petitioner will take care of her, as per document No.186/13 of SRO, Kodaly, she had transferred her right over the property in favour of the petitioner. In para 20, she further reiterates that the petition schedule property was purchased in the name of both the persons as per document No.1427/1993 and that the petitioner has no right in the property. However, it is further pleaded that to cancel document No.1427/1993, a suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, she claims only half right over the property covered by the said document. and she only seeks cancellation of document No.186/2013 of the SRO, Kodaly. 10. In para 21 also, her claim is only with respect to one half right in respect of property covered by document No.1427/1993 and contends that the document No.186/13 has been executed on account of undue influence by the petitioner. 11. Two aspects are rather clear from the pleadings. One is that the respondent contends that the entire property was purchased with her funds and the petitioner has no right. OP(FC) No.49/17 -:10:- Secondly, she states that she is not making the claim since such a claim would be barred by limitation and therefore confines her claim to setting aside document No.186/13 by which she transferred her half right in favour of the petitioner. 12. Initially, it has to be considered whether there is a conscious waiver of her right or conscious relinquishment of her right. 13. In the decision reported in _**State of Haryana and others v. M.P. Mohla**_ (2007 (1) SCC 457), it has been held in paragraphs 25 and 26 that: _“25. The law as regards the effect of an admission is also no longer res integra. Whereas a party may not be permitted to resile from his admission at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings, it is also trite that an admission made contrary to law shall not be binding on the State._ _“26. Reliance has been placed on_ _**Sangaramsinh**_ _**P. Gaekward v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad** (2005_ _(11) SCC 314) wherein the court was considering the effect of an admission made in the pleadings which was binding on the party proprio vigore in the subsequent proceedings”._ 14. In the decision reported in _**Associated Hotels of India Ltd v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh**_ (AIR 1968 SC 933) in OP(FC) No.49/17 -:11:- ## paragraph 14 it has been observed as follows: _“It is argued that the respondent waived the requirement of consent to the sub-letting. Any sub-letting in breach of the provisions of Cl.(b) of the proviso to S.13(1) is an offence punishable under S.44. Assuming that the landlord can waive the requirement as to consent, it is not shown that the respondent-waived it. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. There can be no waiver unless the person against whom the waiver is claimed had full knowledge of his rights and of facts enabling him to take effectual action for the enforcement of such rights. See Dhanukdhari Singh v. Nathima Sahu (1907 (7) Cal.WN 848 at p.852)._ 15. So it is clear from the above decisions that when a person makes a waiver or relinquishment of his or her own right, he/she must be aware of the fact that he/she was doing it after knowing all the consequences of such admission or knowing the law on the subject at the relevant time. Therefore, if any admission is made on a wrong assumption of law or on the basis of some wrong advice given without knowing its consequences or its true purport, then it cannot be said to be an intentional act of relinquishing his or her right in respect of the same the waiver is claimed. 16. In the decision reported in _**Rahima Ummal Sara**_ OP(FC) No.49/17 -:12:- _**Ummal and another v. Sarasamma**_ (2012 (3) KHC 483) it has been held that: _“In a case where inconsistent pleas were originally available in the plaint and after discovery of new and important facts, the wrong facts earlier pleaded can be corrected. A mistake of fact can be corrected though the result of the same would be withdrawal of an admission based on those mistaken facts. An indirect admission based on mistaken facts is permitted to be corrected”_ 17. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the admission regarding barred by limitation of the existing right on wrong assumption by the party cannot be said to be a waiver of right preventing her from withdrawing that plea and substitute it with the correct plea. 18. Yet another question would be, when a person had not claimed right in respect of an item of property by contending that the claim if any would be barred by limitation, is it possible to take a plea that limitation will not apply on account of the fact that the transfer was effected at a time when there was a fiduciary relationship by the parties and applying the principle of trust. 19. Even if there is dispute as to whether it is a trust or not OP(FC) No.49/17 -:13:- or whether claim is barred by limitation or not, are all matters to be considered by the court on the basis of the evidence to be adduced in the case. Amendment if allowed, is not going to affect the right of the defendant as he can very well raise all the pleas including limitation and creation of any trust or not in the additional written statement and that has to be considered by the court. 20. In the result, we are of the view that the Family Court was justified in allowing the amendment. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to take all contentions in accordance with law. The Original Petition is hence dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the cost, if not already paid, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** Rp //True Copy// P.S to Judge