JASMER CHAND Vs. SATPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhari, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed.

(2.) It appears from the pleadings that the dispute pertains to ownership rights qua the land of Antu Ram and his wife Mansi Devi, who died issueless. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a declaratory suit claiming themselves to be exclusive owners in possession of the said land.

(3.) Upon notice, the petitioners/defendants filed a written statement dated 11.7.2002 and in its Para No. 6, 7(i) and 8 they averred as follows: 6. Rather the Mutation No. 4629 was got sanctioned legally and the same was sanctioned by the concerned revenue officials in accordance with law in the name of plaintiffs and defendants i.e. to the extent of 1/2 share in the name of plaintiffs and to the extent of 1/2 share in the name of defendants. 7(i) Rather the plaintiffs as well as defendants both are the legal heirs of Mansi Devi and are entitled to inherit the property of Smt. Mansi Devi as per their shares and as such the Mutation has rightly and legally been sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs and defendants to the extent of 1/2 shares each. 8. It is wrong to allege that the land in suit was previously cultivated by Shri Kartara, but it was being cultivated by Smt. Mansi Devi and after her demise of Smt. Mansi Devi, the land in suit is being cultivated by the plaintiffs and defendants as per their shares.