SITARAM Vs. ANIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.111/2012 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Badnapur, is aggrieved by order dtd. 6/8/2024 passed by the said Court rejecting the application filed by him for amendment of plaint, vide Exhibit-147. The said suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that he has become owner of the suit property, which is an agricultural land by adverse possession and for injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from disturbing his possession over the suit property. The plaint is dtd. 28/8/2015.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he had entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property with the father of the defendants late Jagannath Jairam Magare on 30/7/1994 and was placed in possession of the suit property in terms of the said agreement. He claims that although, the sale deed with respect to suit property could not be executed in his favour, he was cultivating the suit property with the consent of deceased vendor Jagannath and was accordingly in lawful possession of the same. He raises contention that in terms of agreement dtd. 30/7/1994, the total sale consideration of the suit property was agreed at Rs.1,16,325.00 out of which he had paid a sum of Rs.51,000.00 and balance amount of Rs.65,325.00 was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. He contends that when he had approached the vendor for execution of sale deed in August, 1996, the vendor suggested that the petitioner should take possession of the suit property and that the sale deed will be executed in due course. It is his case that his name is recorded in the possession column of the revenue record of the suit property from the year 2000. On this basis, the petitioner claims to be in adverse possession of the suit property from the year 2000. It is his contention that after a period of 12 years, he has perfected his title by adverse possession and has become absolute owner of the suit property.

(3.) The respondents/defendants filed written statement opposing the suit. The learned Trial Court framed the issues in the matter, vide Exhibit-45 on 9/7/2018. The petitioner/plaintiff closed his evidence on 19/3/2024 by filing pursis Exhibit-109. Respondents/Defendants also closed their evidence on 23/4/2024, vide pursis at Exhibit-134. The final arguments of the respondents/defendants were also completed on 6/7/2024. At this stage, when the suit was posted for final arguments of the petitioner/plaintiff, the application for amendment of plaint came to be filed vide Exhibit-147. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner/plaintiff sought to incorporate the prayer for specific performance of contract with respect to agreement dtd. 30/7/1994 and also a decree for protection of possession in part performance of contract as per Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as "the T.P. Act"). Necessary pleadings in support of these prayers were also sought to be incorporated. The defendants/respondents opposed the said application on the grounds that the application was filed at a belated stage; it had the effect of completely altering the nature of the suit and that the prayers sought to be incorporated were barred by limitation.