Kalyani Challenges Hiremath’s Amendment Application in 2012 Suit

• Argues that Hiremath cannot “substitute the cause of action” from a declaration to partition
• Highlights Hiremath’s alleged inconsistencies across multiple cases

Babasaheb N. Kalyani (BNK) in his reply to Sugandha Hiremath’s amendment application, submitted before the Civil Judge in Pune, has said that the amendment mirrors a “malicious and bogus” partition suit filed by Hiremath’s children, Sameer and Pallavi, who are not members of the Kalyani family.

BNK’s reply opposing Sugandha Hiremath’s recent attempt to amend her original suit filed in 2012 argues that the Hiremath’s move is not only procedurally flawed but also an attempt to distort the original nature of the case.

In 2012, Sugandha Hiremath filed a declaratory suit seeking to nullify three key documents – two gift deeds (2009), a memorandum of understanding (2002), and a sale indenture (2011) –while asserting her status as a coparcener in the Dr. Neelkanth A. Kalyani Hindu Undivided Family (NAK HUF). Notably, the suit did not seek partition of the HUF’s assets, with Hiremath explicitly stating in her original plaint that “no cause of action for partition has arisen.”

Hiremath’s recent amendment application, filed after more than a decade of legal proceedings, seeks to convert the declaratory suit into a partition suit. It alleges the existence of a broader “Kalyani Family HUF” dating back to her grandfather, Late Annappa Narayan Kalyani (ANK), and demands division of over 200 properties and businesses.

BNK contends that this sudden shift is an attempt to align the present suit with separate partition suits filed by Hiremath’s children, Sameer and Pallavi, in 2024.

BNK’s reply accuses Hiremath of employing contradictory legal tactics across multiple suits. It points to earlier statements made by Hiremath in a separate partition suit of 2014 (filed by Sheetal Kalyani), where she denied the existence of HUF properties within the family and asserted that a granddaughter has no legal right to partition her grandfather’s HUF. Yet, the 2024 amendment seeks to incorporate properties she previously disavowed as HUF assets.

Key Arguments Against the Amendment

1. Contradictory Pleadings: BNK highlights inconsistencies in Hiremath’s legal positions over time. The reply emphasizes that Hiremath had previously admitted no cause existed for partition and had, in fact, refuted the existence of an HUF within the Kalyani family.
2. Procedural Impropriety: BNK argues that Hiremath’s attempt to convert a declaratory suit into a partition suit after 12 years undermines established legal procedures. The reply asserts that such a drastic change in the nature of the suit cannot be permitted under the Civil Procedure Code.
3. Time-Barred Claims: The reply stresses that the reliefs sought in the amendment are legally time-barred and cannot be revived through procedural amendments.
4. Estoppel by Conduct: BNK points out that the Hiremath had signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2011, appointing BNK as Karta of the NAK HUF, thereby recognizing his role. Hiremath’s current attempt to challenge this is seen as contradictory and legally untenable.
5. Malafide Intent: BNK accuses Hiremath of acting with malafide intentions, aiming to bolster her children’s claims in their separate partition suits. The reply characterizes the amendment as a deliberate distraction from the original case, motivated by personal and financial interests.