CHRISTABAL KAMALA BHAI Vs. P. ITTOOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE court below has by the order impugned allowed amendment of the plaint in a suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction. The plaintiff had initially averred in the plaint that he is entitled to jenm right over the Plaint B schedule property. The plaint is sought to be amended by incorporating that the plaintiff has perfected his title over the Plaint B Schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. The plaintiff has thereby sought to delete his original prayer in the plaint for a declaration that he is entitled to jenm right over the Plaint B Schedule property. The defendants contend that the plea sought to be incorporated by the plaintiff is bereft of bona fides. The defendants point out that the plaintiff had earlier filed O.A. No. 127 of 1990 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode. The plaintiff had set up a case of Karaima tenancy over the Plaint B Schedule property in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. This was for the purpose of beneficial enjoyment of the Plaint A Schedule property of extent 1 cent.

(2.) THE defendants in short maintain that inconsistent pleas are put forth by the plaintiffs in the three different proceedings. All these are matters to be considered by the court at the time of adjudicating the amended relief. The nature of the amended right claimed by the plaintiff is a matter for adjudication by the Court. The defendants are not in any way disabled from disputing the reliefs claimed by amendment by filing an additional written statement.