TARLOK SINGH Vs. PARSINNO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated December 23, 1988, passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Batala, rejecting application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) IN the written statement, originally, para 3, as mentioned, reads as under :-- "that para No. 3 is wrong and is strongly denied. The deceased Shri Sadhu Singh has been given shamlat land which falls outside Lal Lakir, by the Gram Panchayat Ghoman, Tehsil Batala, on the basis of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, about 15/18 years back, on which the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh raised construction of two rooms with the help of the defendants and started living together as joint family. The defendants had already been given the possession of the house by the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh during his life time, and therefore, it could not be said that the defendants illegally (possessed it) That the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh made a Will, bequea thing his house comprising two rooms in favour of the defendant Mohinder Singh on dated 25-2-1983 at his house at village Ghoman, Tehsil Batala in the presence of some witnesses. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh having transferred his interest in house which devolved upon the defendant Mohinder Singh by intestate succession vide Will Deed made on 25-2-1983. The deceased Shri Sadhu Singh died on 5-8-1987 at village Ghoman-Tehsil Batala and after the death of Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh, on 5-8-1987 the defendant Mohinder Singh has succeeded to and inherited the house in the suit The defendant has set up his claim of being the real owner of the house on the basis of the Will, annexed with the written statement, made by the Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh had done so right in the beginning to bequeath his house in favour of defendant Shri Mohinder Singh. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh used to reside with the defendant Mahinder Singh and his family took care of the Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh and the said plaintiff resided at far off places, never met him during his life time Neither plaintiff attended the funeral ceremony of the deceased Sadhu Singh. Plaintiff never inclined nor were she in a position to take care of the Testator deceased Sadhu Singh. The Testator resided with defendant Mohinder Singh even much prior to 25-2-1983 when the Will was executed. The remaining two rooms have been constructed by the defendants themselves after the death of said Sadhu Singh. "

(3.) IN the application for amendment sought to be made in this para, it was stated that toe words "by intestate succession" have been written inadvertently and by mere type mistake. It is further mentioned that after the words "mohinder Singh" and before the words "vide Will" the words "by intestate succession" may be allowed to be deleted and in its place words "transferred all rights of house in question to defendants" be inserted. The other amendment was sought in para 5 of the written statement, which reads as under :-" that para No. 5 is wrong and denied. The plaintiff has got no cause of action. The defendants are in continuous, consistent and integral possession even during the life time of the Testator deceased Sadhu Singh, about 15/18 years back. The executed Will deed dated 25-2-1983, has come into operation on 5-8-1983. The Testator Shri Sadhu Singh (deceased) having his interest transferred in the house, which devolved upon defendant Shri Mohinder Singh by intestate succession Will Deed made on 25-2-1983. The question does not arise that defendants are in illegal possession and the jurisdiction of the court is barred. This Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate upon the matter. " In this para also the words "by intestate succession" were inadvertently written and similarly words "transferred all rights of house in question to the defendants" are to be added.