In Brief
A widow and her sons sought to resist a partition suit brought by another son regarding a joint family property in Delhi. When the plaintiff sought to amend his pleadings to include a claim for another property's sale proceeds (sold in 2000), the trial court rejected this amendment as barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the amendment should have been allowed, since it was filed before evidence was led and parties subsequently conducted their evidence on the amended pleadings. No prejudice was shown. The Court remitted the case for final decision on the merits, without prejudging the limitation question or the substantive claims.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.