"Illiterate, Unable To Understand Pleadings": Bombay High Court Allows Pardanashin Woman To Add Facts Omitted Earlier In Written Statement

The Bombay High Court recently allowed a pardanashin lady to amend her written statement in a suit against her despite the facts proposed to be introduced via the amendment being already known to her and still not included in the original written statement.

Justice BP Deshpande of the Nagpur Bench set aside appellate court's order rejecting her prayer for amendment, observing that though she knew the facts when she filed the written statement, she did not understand the requirements of pleadings in the written statement.

“the petitioner/defendant being illiterate and pardanashin lady was in fact unable to understand the pleadings in the written statement and therefore, in order to do justice effectively, the proposed amendment which is in the nature of clarification, ought to have been considered by the learned First Appellate Court. However, while taking hyper technical aspect and without considering the status of the defendant, such amendment was rejected”, the court held.

The defendant filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned on the ground that as an illiterate 'pardanashin' lady, she was unable to understand the intricacies of the legal pleadings in her original written statement.

The petitioner's brother (respondent/original plaintiff) filed the suit against her seeking declaration, perpetual injunction, and possession of a plot. He claimed ownership of the property, stating that he purchased it through a sale deed dated. He accused the petitioner of fraudulently inserting her name in the property register through mutation entries based on a purported gift deed.

The plaintiff alleged that no such gift deed existed and approached the Civil Court to declare the mutation entry null and void. However, the petitioner resisted the suit by claiming that the property was purchased by her husband in the plaintiff's name with an agreement that it would be transferred to her. Subsequently, she claimed, the plaintiff executed a gift deed in her favor, leading to the mutation entries.

The Trial Court rejected her contentions regarding the gift deed due to insufficient pleadings in her written statement. She appealed this decision before the District Court. While the appeal was pending, she filed an application to amend her written statement, seeking to incorporate additional details about the gift deed. The First Appellate Court rejected her application citing her lack of diligence in filing the initial written statement, as the proposed amendment was not in the nature of subsequent development. Thus, she filed the present writ petition.

The court observed that while the petitioner had disclosed the existence of the gift deed in the original written statement, the proposed amendment sought to clarify its details. The court opined that the proposed amendments aimed to clarify the contents of the gift deed and did not change the nature of the defence. It observed that the defendant's illiteracy and pardanashin status hindered her understanding of legal proceedings, justifying the need for clarification.

“The proposed amendment is only to clarify the contents of the gift deed. No doubt, all these details were known to the defendant, however, the fact remains that she being illiterate and pardanashin lady, was unable to understand the intricacies of the pleadings and the requirement thereof.”

The court said that refusing the amendment could lead to injustice or multiple litigations, as the plaintiff alleged the gift deed is false but did not challenge its validity in the suit. Additionally, it found no mala fide intention behind the proposed amendments.

The court opined that allowing amendments necessary for a just decision and noted that such amendments could be allowed even at the appellate stage. Thus, the court allowed the petition, subject to the payment of Rs. 5000 nominal costs to the respondent/original plaintiff.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 1608 of 2021

Case title – Hasinabi w/o Abdul Latif v. Mohammad Sharif S/o Abdul Rajjak