DEEPAK THAPAR Vs. RAVINDER THAPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of order dated 30.07.2008, granted by the learned Trial Court, is under challenge at the hands of the plaintiff/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'). It is vide that order that the learned Trial Court allowed a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') for amendment of the written statement to take up a plea which is extracted hereunder:

(2.) For enabling appropriate appreciation of the controversy, it would be useful to indicate the respective pleas of the parties in the first instance. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the impugned suit on the basis of a Will dated 29.08.1991 executed by his father Shri Chhajju Ram Thapar, bequeathing the property in dispute to him. Shri Chhajju Ram Thapar aforementioned died on 06.02.1992. The respondent had been allowed to stay on the first floor of disputed house, as a licensee. That license came to be revoked on 30.09.1994.

(3.) The plea raised by the defendant - respondent in the course of the written statement filed on 13.12.1994 was that he, along with the petitioner herein and some others, are co-owners of that suit property. The averment made by the petitioner that the respondent was a licensee in the premises was denied by the latter. The respondent had simultaneously also set up a plea of being exclusive owner of the property on the basis of a Will dated 20.04.1977 executed by Smt. Gian Devi, grandmother of the parties. It was indicated in the written statement itself that these two pleas, which are inconsistent inter se, are being taken up. On the basis of the Will dated 20.04.1977, the respondent claimed to have become owner in possession of the present suit property to the extent of 1/2 share and he has already filed a suit for declaration of title against the petitioner herein.