Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.The 4 and 5th respondents, who are the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit, filed counter objecting to the receipt of the additional statement stating that the defendants 1 and 2 viz., the revision petitioners herein, in collusion with the plaintiffs, the respondents 1 and 2 herein and with the intention of defeating the rights of the defendants 4 and 5 is attempting to project a new case in respect of item No.3 and the plea taken by the defendants by way of additional written statement introduces a new case, which is mutually destructive of their earlier stand and the 4th defendant also denied the fraud alleged to have been played by him on the revision petitioners and by allowing the defendants 1 and 2 to file the additional written statement, the 4th defendant will be prejudiced. The 5th defendant viz., the 5th respondent herein also reiterated the same allegation in his counter.

9.The learned Principal District Judge dismissed the application to receive the additional written statement holding that the revision petitioners have taken mutually destructive plea in the additional written statement, which are contrary to the stand taken by them in the original written statement and having accepted in the written statement that the 4th respondent is their power agent and he executed the sale deed as their power agent in favour of the 5th respondent/5th defendant in respect of 3rd item of property and the sale is also a genuine and valid one and they wanted to resile from the earlier stand and to take a new stand by which the benefits accrued to the respondents 4 and 5 is sought to be taken away, which is not permitted under law. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners.

12.They further contended that in the additional written statement mutually destructive plea has been taken and as held by this Court in the judgment reported in 2007(1) CTC 586, in the case of R.S.Nagarajan vs. R.S.Gopalan and others, such a plea cannot be allowed to be taken in the additional written statement. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 also relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008(7)SCC 85, in the case of Gautham Sarup vs. Leela Jetly and others and the judgment reported in 2009(2) SCC 409, in the case of Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, in support of their contention. It is further contended by them that in the original written statement, the revision petitioners have admitted that the sale by the 4th defendant as their power agent in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of Item No.5 is a genuine sale deed and it is an admission by the revision petitioners and that admission cannot be allowed to be erased and the plea taken in the additional written statement is not an alternative relief, but it is the mutually destructive plea taken by the revision petitioners and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to file the additional written statement.

15.In the written statement, originally filed by the revision petitioners, they admitted the execution of the power in favour of the 4th respondent. In the additional written statement, they have taken the plea that the 4th respondent played fraud on them and after the death of their father, the 4th respondent was taking care of them and they trusted the 4th respondent and executed a power in his favour and the 4th respondent took advantage of the power sold the 3rd item in favour of the 5th respondent for a lesser consideration, though the property is worth more than 17 lakhs and the sale is not valid under law and they are not bound by the same. It is further admitted that while plaintiffs witnesses were examined, no such plea was taken as claimed in the additional written statement. Even, while filing the proof affidavit, the first defendant did not take such stand and only after the case was posted for the cross examination of the first defendant, the 1st defendant has come forward with the application for receipt of the additional written statement and has taken a different stand in respect of the 3rd item of the property and in the additional written statement, he also questioned the competency of the 4th respondent to execute the sale deed and also made allegations against the 4th defendant. In such circumstances, we will have to see whether such application for filing additional written statement can be permitted. It is settled principles of law that in the written statement, the defendant is entitled to take mutually inconsistent plea and he is not permitted to take mutually destructive plea. Further, in the additional written statement though the defendant is entitled to take inconsistent plea, he is prohibited from introducing a new case or taking a mutually destructive plea. Further, the Courts have held that the Courts must be liberal in receiving the additional written statement and the principles, which govern the amendment of written statement should not be imported in the case of receipt of the additional written statement. In the case of amendment of written statement, if the defendant wants to erase or delete admission or statement made in the original statement and introduce a new set of facts by which the benefits accrued to the parties by reason of the admission made by the defendants in the original written statement is taken away and therefore, in such circumstances, the Courts have held that when by reason of the amendment of the written statement, the admission made by the defendants are sought to be erased and a new case is put forward that should not be allowed.