RAMNARAYAN Vs. PURANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case in the plaint which was presented on 7-4-1961 was that he was Bhumiswamy of the suit lands and was in possession for the last twenty years, that the defendants nearly a year before trespassed on the lands and caused loss to the plaintiff by committing theft of his crop and a criminal case instituted against them is pending, that he was still in possession but as the defendants were again threatening to take forcible possession, he should be granted a decree of permanent injunction against them. THE defendants in their written statement denied the title of the plaintiff and pleaded that they never committed any act of trespass or theft and the criminal case against them was false, that they have been in possession of the suit lands for a long time and the plaintiff was never in possession and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed by him. THE plaintiff in his deposition which was recorded on 21-9-1962 stated that the defendants by their acts of trespass and other unlawful acts dispossessed him two years before. THE trial Court in its judgment which was delivered on 30-9-1963 held that the plaintiff was Bhumiswamy of the suit lands and that he was in possession till three years before (i. e. till 1960) when he was dispossessed by the defendants. THE Court further held that as the plaintiff was out of possession, he should have claimed the relief of possession and was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. THE plaintiff's suit was, therefore, dismissed. He then went in appeal to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sehore. During the pendency of his appeal in that Court, he filed an application on 17-8-1966 under Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend the plaint and to incorporate in it an averment of dispossession in 1960 and a relief for possession. THE Additional District Judge has rejected this application and has dismissed the appeal.

(3.) IN my view, the aforesaid reasons stated by the learned Additional District Judge in his order are not good reasons in law.