SUKUMAR KANP Vs. KHUDIRAM PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order no. 126 dtd. 28/9/2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3 rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No. 117 of 2010 present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred. By the impugned order learned Court below has been pleased to reject plaintiff's prayer for amendment of plaint.

(2.) Petitioner contended that the aforesaid Title Suit against opposite parties was filed with prayer for declaration of title in the (ka) schedule property and also for a declaration that the plaintiffs have inherited the said property and the opposite parties have no right title or interest in the said property under any capacity and also for permanent injunction. Petitioner states that the Schedule property originally belonged to one Amiya Ranjan Maity son of Sashibhusan Maity and Amiya Ranjan Maity was in khas possession in the said land by making cultivation and his name was duly recorded in the record of rights. Subsequently said schedule property was sold to the predecessor of the plaintiffs, Madhusudan Kanp by a deed of sale dtd. 1/8/1956. Madhusudan after purchase digged a pond on a portion of the said Schedule land and some portion converted into Bastu where he had built a house and was in possession. The plaintiffs in their turn were resided in the said house to look after the said property. The name of Madhusudan kanp was recorded in the L.R. Record of Rights but due to mistake the area of land has not been shown correctly. Madusudan Kanp sold 78 decimal of land from "Kha" schedule and rest 2.42 decimal of land was in his possession. Plaintiff's further case is Madhusudan Kanp died sometime in the year 2000 and as such the plaintiffs inherited the said property as his legal heirs and representative. Petitioner further submits that the opposite parties No.1(ka) to 1 (cha) are claiming themselves as Bargadar in respect of a portion of "Ka" schedule suit property but the plaintiff are not served with any notice in respect of recording of their names as Bargadar and further contended that recording their names as "Bargadar" is erroneous and baseless.

(3.) The evidence of both the parties have concluded and after closing of evidence the petitioners filed aforesaid application for amendment of plaint on 24/7/2019. By the said application for amendment the plaintiffs want to incorporate as to how and in what manner their vendor Amiya Maity got the suit property and if the said facts be not incorporated in the plaint that will cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff. In support of their delayed filing of application for amendment, plaintiffs contended that at later stage they came to know about the fact relating to way of acquisition of title by Amiya Maity in connection with the suit property, from whom plaintiffs father purchased the suit property.