DHARAM SINGH Vs. RATTAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this order the parties are referred to by their original positions in the suit. Plaintiff has brought this revision against the order dated April 22, 2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagadhri whereby application for amendment of the written statement has been allowed. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is exclusive owner in possession of land measuring 42K-02M comprising Khewat/Khatoni No.237/20/98 in Khasra Nos.20//14 Min as described in Prayer A. Prayers B to D are description of properties of defendants 2 and 3 and defendants 4 and 5 respectively with their lands described in the said three prayers. Prayer E relates to a rasta of two gathas in which the claim share of defendant 1 is 2/3rd while the share of the plaintiff is 1/3 rd and two gathas multiplied by two gathas of the rasta on the Northern-Western corner of Khasra No.20//18. The plaintiff and the defendants are related to each other. Defendant 3 is the widow of Ashok Kumar who is the decedent brother of the plaintiff and defendant 2 is the son of defendant 3. The plaintiff relied on a family settlement by which it is alleged that the parties were put in possession of their respective shares as per the family arrangement. Defendant 1, defendants 2 and 3 and defendants 4 and 5 filed separate written statements admitting the claim of the plaintiff and the existence of the family settlement. These written statements were filed in August, September and October 2011 respectively. On February 11, 2012 a compromise deed was placed on record with each party signing the same before the trial Court. The parties had appeared through counsel before the trial court. The statements of defendants 1, 4 and 5 were recorded before the court admitting the compromise. However, the statement of defendants 2 and 3 could not be recorded on February 11, 2012 and the case was adjourned for recording of their statement. When the application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decree the suit in terms of the compromise defendants 2 and 3 denied the factum of family settlement/compromise alleging that the compromise has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts. Defendants 2 and 3 pleaded that they have never admitted the claim. The plea of the contesting defendants was that they had never authorized any counsel to file a written statement on their behalf and the alleged compromise in Court and the written statement and the compromise have been obtained by playing fraud and by misrepresenting the facts. The reply of defendants 2 and 3 to the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was verified on February 14, 2013 at Jagadhri.

(2.) In this background, defendants 2 and 3 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 151 CPC for permission to amend the written statement filed on their behalf in order to contest the suit on merits. It was pleaded that the said two defendants are 'illiterate' persons while plaintiff is an advocate by profession practising in District Courts at Jagadhri who wants to grab the property of the two defendants which otherwise stands in their names in the revenue record and the same is owned and possessed by them as per the respective shares. It is alleged by them that the plaintiff has obtained a loan on some of the suit property as security which property is the one mentioned in Prayer C of the plaint which relates to defendants 2 and 3. In the suit, the plaintiff claims 42K-02M of land as his as against defendant No.1 shown to own 25K-10M while defendants 4 and 5 are mentioned as owners in possession of 01K-10M of land whereas defendants 2 and 3 are shrunk as owners of only 18K of land as per the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff contested the application unsuccessfully. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagadhri by order dated April 22, 2013 has allowed the application and permitted defendant Nos.2 and 3 to amend their written statement to enable them to contest the suit on merits against the brother-in-law, the plaintiff.