RAHIMA BIBI Vs. MD. PENTU SEKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner Rahima Bibi under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as she felt aggrieved by the order No. 14 dtd. 12/9/2018, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Additional Court, Lalbagh, Murshidabad in Title Suit No. 165/2017. By the aforesaid impugned order, learned Trial Court was pleased to reject petitioners prayer for amendment of plaint.

(2.) Petitioners case in a nutshell is that petitioner as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 165/2017 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lalbagh, Murshidabad contending that the schedule mentioned suit property was purchased by the defendant and while he was in possession of suit property, defendant had sold the same in favour of plaintiff Rahima Bibi by a registered deed dtd. 14/10/1991 and delivered possession in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff after getting possession of the same, constructed tin shaded room and also planted various fruit bearing trees. Be it also mentioned that plaintiff had taken loan from bank of India for purchasing tractor by mortgaging the aforesaid deed dtd. 14/10/1991 to the bank. Further case of the plaintiff/petitioner herein is that she also acquired Title in the schedule mentioned suit property by way of adverse possession.

(3.) Since purchase plaintiff did not face any difficulty in possessing the schedule mentioned suit property, but on 1/6/2017 defendant /opposite party suddenly came to the suit property and declared that he had never sold schedule mentioned suit property in favour of plaintiff and accordingly he has evicted plaintiff from the said suit property. Plaintiff got astonished with this and after collecting copy of the said sale deed dtd. 14/10/1991, from the concerned bank, she came to know that due to mistake committed by deed writer, khatian No. has been erroneously written as 604 and plot No. has been wrongly written as 689, though it should have been written as khatian No. 88 and plot No. 604. At the time of the execution of the deed, no one had noticed aforesaid mistake and contents of the deed was never read over or explained to the parties and defendant on good faith had executed and registered the said deed. If the aforesaid mistake would have pointed out at the time of execution and registration of the deed, defendant would have certainly rectified the said mistake, which occurred due to inadvertence. Accordingly plaintiff has given details of the said deed in "Kha " schedule and stated that unless said mistake be rectified various future complications will arise and accordingly he has prayed for declaration of title in the schedule mentioned suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining defendant from disturbing plaintiffs possession in the suit property.