* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th MARCH, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
I.A. 14915/2025
IN
+ CS(OS) 728/2022
ANITA MALHOTRA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Vivek Singh, Ms. Kirti
Mewar,Ms. Mana Singh, Advs.
versus
SATISH KUMAR SOOD AND ORS .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Kartik Nagarkatti and Mr.
SanchitGawri, Advs for D-1, 3 & 4.
Mr. Vikas Mishra, Mr. Nilay Kaushal
and Mr. Krishna Dev Yadav, Advs
for D-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC on behalf of
the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.
2. The Plaintiff has filed the instant suit with the following prayers:-
"a) Pass a Decree of mandatory injunction directing
the Defendants to disclose the details of Will of Smt.
Bachitra Rani Sood and file the same on record and
further provide details of properties and assets of Late
Smt. Bachitra Rani Sood w.e.f. 2004/05 till the time of
her death; and/ or
Upon the Defendants providing the above details:-
b) Pass a Decree of declaration thereby declaring all
illegal, fraudulent and wrongful transfers of the assets
of Late Smt. Bachitra Rani Sood during the period
when she medically unfit to take any decision
purportedly by or in the name of Late Smt. Bachitra
Rani Sood after2004/ 2005 as illegal, null, void,
fraudulent.
c) Pass a preliminary Decree of partition with respect
to the movable and immovable assets of Late Smt.
Bachitra Rani Sood.
d) Pass a final Decree of Partition thereby dividing the
movable and immovable assets of Late Smt. Bachitra
Rani Sood by metes and bounds and order auction of
such properties which cannot be divided.
e) Pass a Decree of rendition of accounts calling upon
the Defendants to render of accounts of profit, income,
rent, benefits, dividends etc. from the properties which
are held to be belonging to the deceased Smt. Bachitra
Rani Sood and order the Defendants to pay the
Plaintiffs share of such profits etc. to the Plaintiff.
f) Pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby
restraining the Defendants, their successors, agents,
representative, attorney etc., from alienating,
transferring and I or creating any third party interest
in the properties left behind by Late Smt. Bachitra Rani
Sood; and / or
g) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble
court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The Plaintiff and the Defendants No.1 to 4 are siblings. It is stated
that the family of the Plaintiff belong to a prominent family in Delhi who
has been controlling 'Eros Group'.
4. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff got married in the year
1977. It is stated that the Plaintiff's family developed some differences with
her husband and more particularly Defendant No.2, i.e., sister of the
Plaintiff, who tried to poison the minds of her parents for grabbing the Suit
Properties.
5. It is stated that the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 4
passed away on 12.11.2012 and the father of the Plaintiff passed away on
26.04.2020. It is stated that the Plaintiff was not treated well by her siblings
though she had extremely cordial relationship with her mother.
6. It is stated that at the time of the death of her mother, she was
survived by six Class I legal heirs, i.e., her husband, Defendants No.1, 3 &
4, being sons and two daughters, i.e., Plaintiff and Defendant No.2. After the
Plaintiff's father passed away, there are five Class I legal heirs, i.e., the
Plaintiff and the Defendants.
7. It is also stated that the Plaintiff's parents also had some serious
matrimonial issues. The Plaintiff's mother was extremely emotional,
insecure and wanted to secure herself with sufficient assets in her name and
therefore she insisted that most of the shares of the Eros Group companies
and R.C. Sood & Co. Pvt. Ltd. continue to stand in her name.
8. It is stated that respecting the wishes of the Plaintiff's mother, most of
the shares were transferred by her father in the name of her mother. The
Plaintiff's mother had to go to London for treatment and surgeries. The
Plaintiff was with her mother during July, 2005 to November, 2005. It is
stated that the Plaintiff's mother against the advice of medical team in
London was shifted back to Delhi (at the instance of the Defendants) which
affected her health.
9. It is the case of the Plaintiff that even after the death of her mother,
there was an unsaid understanding between all the family members that the
properties/assets owned by the Plaintiff's mother, which were under the
custody and control of the father would be handed over to the beneficiaries
when the Plaintiff's father finds it right and convenient and that the Plaintiff
always assumed and understood that there would be transparency in all the
dealings with respect to the estate left by her mother. It is stated that she did
not doubt the intentions of her siblings as everybody in the family was well
off and she was assured that she would not be deprived of her rightful share
in the estate of her mother.
10. It is stated that the Plaintiff's father passed away on 26.04.2020 and
he neither made any disclosure with respect of the wealth/assets of the
Plaintiff's mother nor did he distribute the same to the other sister, i.e.,
Defendant No.2. It is stated that the Plaintiff started making enquiry about
the estate but there was no cooperation from the family.
11. It is stated that despite numerous letters, there was no reply from the
Defendants regarding the details of the movable and immovable properties
left behind by their mother.
12. It is stated that for the first time somewhere in the year 2007, the
mother of the Plaintiff had told her that she had executed a Will in the year
2004 bequeathing 50% of her property in favour of the Plaintiff and
remaining 50% was bequeathed in favour of the sister of the Plaintiff, i.e.,
Defendant No.2. It is stated that the Plaintiff has not been able to find out the
details of said Will.
13. It is stated that the Plaintiff was always under the impression that if at
all there is a Will she is entitled to 50% of her mother's estate, but the
Plaintiff's mother died intestate. It is stated that the Plaintiff later became
aware of serious manipulation and transfer of the assets and properties
belonging to her mother during her lifetime. The plaint alleges that these
manipulations were carried out by the Defendants and are fraudulent in
nature. The Plaintiff on the basis of these averments has approached this
Court by filing the present Suit seeking declaration, partition, rendition,
mandatory and permanent injunction.
14. Summons were issued on 19.12.2022. Detailed written statements
have been filed by Defendant No.2, i.e., sister of the Plaintiff, and
Defendants No.1, 3 and 4, i.e., brothers of the Plaintiff.
15. A common stand taken in both the written statements is that during
her lifetime, the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had sold,
gifted, and transferred several of her properties to various family members.
It is further stated that she also left behind a Will dated 28.02.2012.
16. Defendant No.2 in Paragraph 3.6 of her written statement has given a
table of all transfers made by their mother during her lifetime whereby
shares and properties have been transferred in favour of Defendant No.2.
17. Similarly, Defendant No.1, 3 and 4 have also given details of various
transfers made by their mother during her lifetime. Paragraph 5(vi) of their
written statement details various transfers. The written statements also states
that apart from the other transfers, there were other loans and share transfers
during her lifetime which were in the knowledge of the Plaintiff.
18. On coming to know of the facts stated in the written statements filed
by the Defendants, the Plaintiff has filed the present application under Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of plaint and the Plaintiff has
chosen to implead certain companies which were being run by her mother
and a Trust wherein the properties, shares of her mother have been
transferred.
19. By way of the said amendments, the Plaintiff has specifically
challenged the transfer of shares, allotment of properties, and the gifts made
by her mother during her lifetime in favour of the Defendants. The Plaintiff
alleges that these transactions are fraudulent in nature and are the result of
manipulation and forgery. Details have been sought to be given in the
application seeking amendment of the plaint showing as to how the
conveyance deed, gift deeds etc. are product of fraud.
20. Apart from amending the pleadings, and the memo of parties, the
Plaintiff has chosen to amend the title of the Suit. Paragraph 24 of the plaint
has been amended challenging various transfers, gifts of the properties of
her mother which the Plaintiff came to know through the Written Statement.
21. Paragraph 25, the Plaintiff has also prayed for amending the prayer
clause which now reads as under:-
"H. That in view of the amendment in the pleading and
the prayers sought, the Plaintiff seeks to amend the
prayer clauses. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
allow the Plaintiff to amend the prayer clause as
under:-
a) Pass a Decree of Declaration thereby declaring the
Will and testament dated 28.02.2012 of Late Smt.
Bachitra Rani Sood as null and void and consequently
hold that the Plaintiff and Defendant nos.1 to 4 are the
owners of 1/5th share each of the estate of Late Smt.
Bachitra Rani Sood;
b) Pass a Decree of Declaration thereby declaring the
documents and transfers/ assignments of documents in
paragraph no. 24(XI) as illegal, null and void, and
further declaring the same to be the properties left
behind by Smt. Bachitra Rani Sood and liable to be
partitioned amongst her legal heirs, with each
having1/5th share,
c) If prayer (a) and (b) are allowed in favour of the
Plaintiff by this Hon'ble Court, then pass a Preliminary
Decree of Partition with respect to the movable and
immovable assets of Late Smt. Bachitra Rani Sood,
i.e.:
(i) 1,06,885 equity shares of M/s R.C. Sood &
Company Private Limited.
(ii) 68,000 equity shares of M/s R.C. Sood & Company
Private Limited.
(iii) 17,000 equity shares of M/s R.C. Sood & Company
Private Limited.
(iv) 2,53,000 equity shares with differential rights of
M/s Ajay Enterprises
(v) 12,76,600 equity shares of M/s Nehru Place Hotels
Private Limited
(vi) 4,813 equity shares of M/s Eros City Developers
Private Limited
(vii) 3,27,600 equity shares of M/s R.C. Sood & Co.
Developers Private Limited.
(viii) Space no. 207, F Block, International Trade
Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
(ix) Space No. 208, F Block, International Trade
Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
(x) Space no. 211, F Block, International Trade Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi.
(xi) Plot No. A-42, Lakewood City, Surajkund Road,
Faridabad, Haryana.
(xii) Plot No. A-46, Lakewood City, Surajkund Road,
Faridabad, Haryana.
(xiii) Plot No. A-47, Lakewood City, Surajkund Road,
Faridabad, Haryana.
(xiv) Plot No. C-66, Lakewood City, Surajkund Road,
Faridabad, Haryana.
(xv) Plot No. C-67, Lakewood City, Surajkund Road,
Faridabad, Haryana.
(xvi) Plot No. D-98, Lakewood City, Surajkund Road,
Faridabad, Haryana.
(xvii) Jewelry of Late Smt. Bachitra Rani Sood.
(xviii)Amount of Rs. 6.30 Crores.
d) Pass a Final Decree of Partition in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby
partitioning the movable and immovable assets of Late
Smt. Bachitra Rani Sood by metes and bounds, or in
the alternative, in case if this Hon'ble Court comes to
the conclusion that the properties are incapable of
being physically partitioned by metes and bounds,
then, the same be auctioned in accordance with Law
and the Plaintiff be given an amount equivalent to the
value of her share in the same;
e) Pass a Decree of rendition of accounts calling upon
the Defendants to render accounts of profit, income,
rent, benefits, dividends etc., from the properties which
are held to be belonging to the Late Smt. Bachitra Rani
Sood and order the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff s
share of such profits etc. to the Plaintiff;
f) Pass, a Decree of permanent injunction thereby
restraining the Defendants, their successors, agents
,representative, attorney etc., from alienating,
transferring and / or creating any third-party interest
in the properties left behind by Late Smt. Bachitra Rani
Sood; and / or
g) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble
court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
22. Replies have been filed by the Defendants. In the reply, the
Defendants have taken two primary objections: (i) that the amendment
sought by the Plaintiff is hit by the law of limitation and, (ii) that the
Plaintiff was aware of the Will dated 28.02.2012.
23. It is stated by the Defendants that it cannot be said that the Plaintiff
was not aware of these transfers as these share transfers were reflected in the
record of the companies and forms part of the annual statutory filings
making the share transfer part of public record. The Defendants rely on
Article 58 of the Limitation Act stating that the relief of declaration has to
be filed within three years when the right to sue first occurs. They also rely
on Article 113 of the Limitation Act which is the residuary clause along with
Section 17 of the Limitation Act which provides for limitation in case of
Suits related to fraud or mistake.
24. It is the specific stand of the Defendants that the Plaintiff has come
with the patently false case as she always knew of all the transfers as well as
the Will and therefore the suit should have been filed at least within three
years of the death of their mother or within three years from the date when
the shares were transferred and the gifts were made to the Defendants.
25. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
26. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff came to
know of these transfers only when the written statements were filed by the
Defendants and that it is only after reading the written statements, the
present application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been filed.
27. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Defendants states that an entirely
new case is now being sought to be pleaded. It is stated that these
amendments are a complete abuse of the process of law and the amendment
sought for are patently barred by limitation.
28. The law regarding amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several judgments. As early
as in the year 1957, the Apex Court in L.J. Leach& Co. Ltd. v. Jardine
Skinner & Co., 1957 SCC OnLine SC 68, has observed as under:-
"16. It is no doubt true that courts would, as a rule,
decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the
amended claim would be barred by limitation on the
date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken
into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether
amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the
power of the court to order it, if that is required in the
interests of justice."
29. Relying on L.J. Leach (supra), the Apex Court in T. N. Alloy Foundry
Company Limited v. T.N. Electricity Board&Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 392, has
observed as under:-
"2. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant, urged that the view taken by the High
Court in rejecting the amendment of the appellant was
erroneous. The law as regards permitting amendment
to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd.
v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957
SCR 438] it was held that the Court would as a rule
decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the
amended claim would be barred by limitation on the
date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken
into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether
amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the
power of the court to order it."
30. In Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar &Ors., (1974) 2 SCC 393, the Apex
Court has held as under:-
"22. The preliminary decree had remained
unchallenged since September, 1958 and by lapse of
time a valuable right had accrued in favour of the
decree-holder. The power to allow an amendment is
undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be
appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the
law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of
such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed
by judicial considerations and wider the discretion,
greater ought to be the care and circumspection on
the part of the Court. The appeal in terms was
originally directed against the finding given by the trial
court that the partition was sham and colourable.
"Being aggrieved by the finding given in the Judgment
and the Decree ... it is humbly prayed that findings
given by the learned Judge in Para 34 of his Judgment
may kindly be set aside, and instead the partition deed
dated January 11, 1956 may kindly be declared as
genuine" -- so ran the Memorandum of Appeal.
Defendants 2 and 3 reiterated through their counsel by
filing a note to explain the payment of fixed court fees
of Rs 20 that they were "seeking the relief of
declaration only" and therefore the court fee paid was
proper and sufficient. Long years thereafter, the High
Court allowed the Memorandum to be amended -- not
a reason was cited to explain the delay and not a
reason was given to condone it. And it was not
appreciated that in granting time to Defendants 2 and
3 to make up the deficit of the court fees 7½ years after
the appeal was filed, an amendment was being allowed
which had its impact not only on the preliminary
decree but on the final decree which was passed in the
meanwhile, the auction sale which was held in
pursuance of the final decree and the sale certificate
which was granted to the appellant who, with the leave
of the Court and in full satisfaction of her decree, had
purchased a joint ½ share in the mortgaged property.
With the striking down of the preliminary decree, these
proceedings had to fall but the error really lay in
allowing the amendment so as to permit, without good
cause shown, a belated challenge to the preliminary
decree."
(emphasis supplied)
31. In Pankajav vs. Yellappa, 2004 (6) SCC 415, the Apex Court has held
as under:-
"12. So far as the court's jurisdiction to allow an
amendment of pleadings is concerned, there can be no
two opinions that the same is wide enough to permit
amendments even in cases where there has been
substantial delay in filing such amendment
applications. This Court in numerous cases has held
that the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment
is to minimise the litigation, therefore, if the facts of
the case so permit, it is always open to the court to
allow applications in spite of the delay and laches in
moving such amendment application.
13. But the question for our consideration is whether in
cases where the delay has extinguished the right of the
party by virtue of expiry of the period of limitation
prescribed in law, can the court in the exercise of its
discretion take away the right accrued to another party
by allowing such belated amendments.
14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and
consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every
case where a relief is barred because of limitation an
amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such
cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the
case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an
amendment being discretionary, the same will have to
be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts
and circumstances in which the amendment is
sought. If the granting of an amendment really
subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids
further litigation the same should be allowed. There
can be no straitjacket formula for allowing or
disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case
depends on the factual background of that case.
xxx
16. This view of this Court has, since, been followed
by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case
of T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity
Board [(2004) 3 SCC 392] . Therefore, an application
for amendment of the pleading should not be
disallowed merely because it is opposed on the
ground that the same is barred by limitation, on the
contrary, application will have to be considered
bearing in mind the discretion that is vested with the
court in allowing or disallowing such amendment in
the interest of justice.
xxx
18. We think that the course adopted by this Court
in Ragu Thilak D. John case [(2001) 2 SCC 472]
applies appropriately to the facts of this case. The
courts below have proceeded on an assumption that the
amendment sought for by the appellants is ipso facto
barred by the law of limitation and amounts to
introduction of different relief than what the plaintiff
had asked for in the original plaint. We do not agree
with the courts below that the amendment sought for by
the plaintiff introduces a different relief so as to bar
the grant of prayer for amendment, necessary factual
basis has already been laid down in the plaint in
regard to the title which, of course, was denied by the
respondent in his written statement which will be an
issue to be decided in a trial. Therefore, in the facts of
this case, it will be incorrect to come to the conclusion
that by the amendment the plaintiff will be introducing
a different relief." (emphasis supplied)
32. After relying on all these judgments, the Apex Court in Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, 2022 (16) SCC 1,
has observed as under:-
"71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are
necessary for determining the real question in
controversy provided it does not cause injustice or
prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is
apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the
latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC.
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties.
71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the
other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment
do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by
the party which confers a right on the other side, and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim,
resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable
accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to
be allowed unless:
71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is
sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the
claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor
for consideration.
71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.
71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or
71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid
defence.
71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of
pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical
approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal
especially where the opposite party can be
compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to
pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in
rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for
amendment should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce
an additional or a new approach without introducing a
time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to
be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars
in the plaint.
71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a
ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of
delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be
allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately
for decision.
71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the
suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely
new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the
amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the
amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in
the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already
pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is
required to be allowed.
71.11. Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required to be
liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in
mind the fact that the opposite party would have a
chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such,
where the amendment does not result in irreparable
prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite
party of an advantage which it had secured as a result
of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the
amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where
the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively
adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between
the parties, the amendment should be allowed.
(See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay
Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine
Del 1897] .)" (emphasis supplied)
33. Applying the said law to the facts of this case, the objection raised by
the Defendants opposing the amendment cannot be sustained. The question
as to whether the Plaintiff was aware of the Will or not can only be
ascertained during trial.
34. Limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and the question of
knowledge is a pure question of fact. A reading of the plaint, as framed, does
not give any indication whether the Plaintiff had any knowledge of transfer
of shares, rather the plaint discloses that the Plaintiff made repeated requests
to the Defendants and the companies to inform her about the nature of
transfers for which she did not get any response.
35. In the written statements, additional facts have been brought on record
and therefore the Plaintiff has to necessarily move an application for
amendment of plaint to challenge the transfers given on the ground that they
are fraudulent. The amendments are therefore necessary for the proper
adjudication of the case, particularly to determine whether the Plaintiff is
entitled to the declarations sought. The reliefs in the plaint, as originally
framed, were omnibus in nature; however, upon disclosure of facts in the
written statements, the Plaintiff has now sought to make the pleadings more
specific through the proposed amendments.
36. The Suit is at a very initial stage and therefore the law laid down by
the Apex Court that courts must be exceedingly liberal in the matter of
amendment and in view of the fact that it cannot be said on the face of the
plaint and the written statements that the amendments which are now being
sought to be included are patently barred by limitation. This Court is
inclined to allow the amendment as sought for by the Plaintiff including the
memo of parties. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. Let the
amended plaint be placed on record.
37. The application is allowed.
CS(OS) 728/2022 & I.A. 19523/2022, I.A. 11853/2023, I.A. 31458/2024,
I.A. 23329/2025, I.A. 23332/2025
List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on
18.05.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
MARCH 19, 2026
hsk
