HARDIAL SINGH Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Denial of permission to the plaintiff to amend his plaint is what is challenged in revision here.

(2.) The land in suit had been sold by the plaintiff to Lachhman Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants by a sale-deed executed on February 7, 1979, which was later registered on February 13, 1979. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the said sale deed was illegal and void having been procured by fraud. It was pleaded in this behalf that Lachhman Singh had got him to execute it by representing it to be a mortgage deed and he had "got the same attested in connivance with the witnesses and the Sub-Registrar". Now by amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff seeks to introduced a plea to the effect that having come to know that the sale-deed had been got executed from him by fraud, the plaintiff refused to get it attested and registered before the Sub-Registrar and Lachhman Singh consequently got it attested and registered in his absence of producing an imposter, who posed to be the plaintiff and signed the endorsement at the back of the sale-deed, as such.

(3.) The present suit was filed by the plaintiff-Hardial Singh, who was 35 years of age, through his mother, as special attorney, as he was described to be a simpleton and a person of week understanding not capable of looking after his own interests. Indeed, evidence has already come on record to show that he was a patient of chronic schizophrenia. From the very nature of the disease, that is, chronic schizophrenia, the plaintiff cannot be treated at par with one possessed of normal mental faculties. This aspect-appears to have escaped consideration by the trial Court leading it thereby to stumble into error in refusing the amendment sought. Delay, in the circumstances was clearly not reason enough to negative the prayer to this effect.