BISWAJIT DEY, S/O LATE NIRODE BARAN DEY Vs. BHUBAN CHANDRA DEBNATH, S/O LATE GAGAN CHANDRA DEBNATH; ASHUTOSH DEBNATH, S/O LATE NISHI KANTA DEBNATH; BAKUL DEBNATH, W/O SRI ASHUTOSH DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-02-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khowai, West Tripura in case No. T.S. 19 of 2013 whereby he partly allowed the application filed by the plaintiffpetitioner for adding parties but dismissed the second prayer made in the application for amendment of the pleadings.

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, for disposal of the petition are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a suit claiming confirmation of his possession and title on the basis that his adverse possession had ripened into full ownership due to long, hostile and adverse possession for the last about 50 years. This suit was filed against defendant Nos.1 and 2. Both the defendants filed a joint written statement in which they claimed that the defendant No.2, on the strength of a power of attorney, issued by defendant No.1 in his favour had sold a portion of the suit land to Smti. Bakul Debnath, wife of defendant No.2. Soon after the written statement was filed, the petitioner before issues were framed filed an application in which two prayers were made. The first prayer was that Smti. Bakul Debnath be added as defendant No.3 in the suit. The second prayer was for permitting the petitioner to make amendment in the suit and by means of this amendment the original plea of adverse possession having ripened into title was not given up, but on the strength of the same it was urged that since the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no right, title or interest to transfer the same in favour of defendant No.3. Consequently, the sale deed dated 13-12-2013 executed by defendant No.2 as power of attorney of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 was also challenged. Consequential prayers were also made. The prayer insofar as it relates to amendment of the plaint has been rejected on the ground that it will change the nature of the suit.

(3.) The law is well settled that while granting amendment the Court should be liberal, especially when amendment is sought at the initial stage. In the present case, the plaintiff had filed the suit on 15-07-2013 praying for the original relief for confirmation of his possession and for a decree of declaration that his adverse possession for a continuous period of more than 12 years had matured into title. In the written statement, it was stated that a sale deed had been executed on 13-12-2013 after the suit had been filed by defendant No.2 as power of attorney of defendant No.1 in favour of none else but his wife, defendant No.3.