DHIREN CHANDRA DEV GOSWAMY (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. SANDHYARANI GOSWAMI AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. RUPA MANJARI CHATTERJEE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 20.01.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur (as it was then) in Title Suit No. 161 of 1991 rejecting the petition for amendment of the plaint under Order-6, Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner being the substituted plaintiff in place of the original. It may be stated here that the suit was filed by the mother of the present petitioner and on her death this petitioner being substituted is prosecuting the suit against the respondents, who have been arraigned as defendants. This order of rejection was challenged in Civil Revision No. 11 of 2000 and the learned District Judge has dismissed the same having prima facie found to be devoid any merit. During pendency of this writ application the sole plaintiff-petitioner who was earlier substituted in the trial court having died his legal representatives are now perusing the writ application.

(2.) Facts necessary for the purpose are the followings:

(3.) The original plaintiff's case is that she being the absolute owner of the property is in possession of the same and when she was ill and her mental faculty was in order, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 her daughters and defendant No. 4, the husband of the defendant No. 2 by fraudulent misrepresentation had got three deeds of gift created in favour of the defendant No. 1 to 3 in respect of separate portions of the suit property and those were done on 19.07.1991 when the plaintiff was in a helpless condition. Subsequently having coming to know about those she had executed the deeds cancellation. So, apprehending disturbance by them, the suit for permanent injunction with other reliefs was filed. The original plaintiff having died, her son came to be substituted in her place to further prosecute the suit. He filed an application under Order-6, Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint especially stating some facts against those deeds of gift and the claim that those are null and void. Further amendments are with regard to the prayers made in the suit as regards declaration of those three registered deeds of gift as void and another registered willnama to be invalid and inoperative.