GITADEVI AGRAWAL Vs. RAM CHANDRA DEVTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are the petitioners before this Court. The prayer for amendment of the written statement having been partly allowed and partly rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bargarh vide order dated 4.5.2002 in Title Suit No. 26 of 1996 and the revision carried against the said order having dismissed as not maintainable, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ application.

(2.) THE suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff -opposite party is owner in possession of the suit land and the alleged sale of the suit land in favour of defendants, if any, is not binding on him and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants -petitioners from going over the suit land and from causing any illegal overt act thereon. Stand of the petitioner in the written statement is that they and their predecessors -in -interest were in possession of the suit land along with other land since time immemorial and the plaintiff was possessing his land as well as some lands belonging to the State Government having amalgamated the same with his own land. It is specific case of the defendants -petitioners that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. Further case of the defendants -petitioners is that their predecessors -in -interest were possessing the suit land and after coming into possession the defendants had raised construction up to plinth level and have spent considerable amount in such construction. The defendants -petitioners claim title over the suit land by way of adverse possession.

(3.) SHRI S.C. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the defendants -petitioners submitted that the question as to whether defendants have acquired title by virtue of sale deed or not has to be decided in view of the averments made in para -2 of the plaint. According to Sri Lal, the proposed amendment is only explanatory in nature and does not change nature and character of the suit. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff -Opposite party, on the other hand, submitted that the defendants having claimed title by way of adverse possession in the original written statement cannot be allowed to take different plea in the proposed amendment and therefore the learned Civil Judge has rightly rejected the petition.