JASPREET KAUR Vs. RAMKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order dt. 7-9-2009 passed by the Court of First Civil Judge Class 2, Ashok Nagar, in Civil Suit No. 53A/09 allowing thereby an application for amendment in the plaint.

(2.) Plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction mainly with the allegations that the suit land belonged to Ramsingh and Ganpat Singh, who were real brothers. Plaintiffs are sons of Ramsingh. Ganpatsingh died issueless. Consequently, Ramsingh became the sole Bhumiswami and occupant of the suit land. Both were Bhumiswami and occupants of the suit land, though Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika was issued in the name of Ramsingh. After the death of both of them, plaintiffs alone became Bhumiswami and occupants of the suit land. They had sown the crop of gram in the year 2006. Husband of defendants/petitioners came on the site in February, 2007 and threatened the plaintiffs to harvest the crop of gram on the ground that the suit land was purchased by defendants/petitioners from Hariom Singh, the defendant/respondent No. 3. On enquiry, plaintiff learnt that Hariom Singh has executed it on the strength of a Will allegedly executed by Ganpat Singh in his favour. It is stated in the plaint that Ganpat Singh did not execute any Will in favour of Hariom Singh and the alleged Will is a forged and concocted document. Hence the suit.

(3.) Defendants/petitioners submitted their written statement with allegation that Ganpat alone was the Bhumiswami and occupant of the suit land, which was mutated in the name of Hariom Singh on the strength of order dt. 26-8-1997 passed by the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Ashok Nagar in Case No. 10A-96-97. It was denied that Ramsingh had any right, title or interest in the suit land. His possession was also denied. Defendants/petitioners having purchased the suit land from Hariom Singh vide registered sale deed dt. 13th February, 2007 are Bhumiswami and occupants of the suit land. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed.