CHARAN SINGH Vs. KULWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision filed by Charan Singh defendant No. 1 against the order dated April 2, 1975, of Sub-Judge IInd Class, Dasuya, whereby he dismissed his application under Order 6 rule 17, Civil Procedure Code; to amend the written statement.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the land in suit measuring 33 Kanals 16 Marlas situated in village Khokhar, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, belonged to Gurwant Singh and on his death was inherited by Smt. Kulwinder Kaur plaintiff-respondent. She brought a suit for possession of this land against Charan Singh. In has written statement Charan Singh defendant-petitioner pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and litigation regarding the title to this land between two widows of Gurwant Singh deceased was pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Dasuya, and that Smt. Bal Kaur another widow of the deceased Gurwant Singh defendant is a necessary party to the suit. Charan Singh defendant also admitted in unequivocal terms in para Nos. 3 and 4 of his written statement that Gurwant Singh deceased left two widows as his legal heirs and that he was in possession as a tenant of the suit property under Gurwant Singh deceased and still continued to be the tenant under the plaintiff Kulwinder Kaur and Bal Kaur. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 23rd November, 1974 :-

(3.) During the pendency of the suit the petitioner Charan Singh defendant No. 1 made an application on 21st March, 1975 under Order 6 rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the written statement alleging that he previously admitted in the written statement that the plaintiff was the legal heir of Gurwant Singh. According to him the plaintiff married Gurwant Singh deceased in the year 1961 and this marriage was void ab initio as it took place after the enforcement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, during the life-time of his first wife Smt. Bal Kaur. According to him Bal Kaur was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and their marriage was still subsisting when Gurwant Singh died. It was further averred that he (Charan Singh) erroneously admitted the title of the plaintiff in the suit land presuming her to be the legal heir of the deceased and that he was a tenant both under the plaintiff and Bal Kaur and that actually he was a tenant under Bal Kaur only. It was, therefore, prayed that he may be permitted to make amendment in para Nos. 3, 4 and 6 of the written statement to raise the plea that the marriage of the plaintiff with Gurwant Singh deceased was void and she was not the legal heir of the deceased, that Smt. Bal Kaur was the legal heir of Gurwant Singh and he was a tenant under her only and the plaintiff has no title to the property and her suit may be dismissed.