PIARI BAI Vs. JAMNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession along with the defendants in equal shares of the land as fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. Case of the plaintiff is that the land was owned by Jagtar Singh, her father and on his death, she inherited the same equally along with defendants. She also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ousting her from the suit land and also restraining them from alienating by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift, transfer, lease or in any manner whatsoever any specific Khasra numbers, beyond their shares and without getting the suit land partitioned. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement. Case of the defendant-petitioners is that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Jagtar Singh and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Defendant No. '1 is the widow of Jagtar Singh and the defendants are only heirs of deceased Jagtar Singh. The factum of Jagtar Singh contracting two marriages was denied. It was denied that the defendants in league with the revenue authorities got a mutation sanctioned. It is denied that the mutation is illegal or void. The defendants are the absolute owners in possession of the suit land.

(2.) AFTER the framing of the issues, the parties led their respective evidence and when the suit became mature for arguments, the defendants moved an application seeking amendment of the plaint. In the application seeking amendment of the plaint, it was stated that the suit land was inherited by Jagtar Singh from his father Bahadur Singh after the death of the latter. Bahadur Singh was allotted land in lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan. The land was thus a Joint Hindu family, ancestral and coparcenary property in the hands of Jagtar Singh. The plaintiff is thus not entitled to the share claimed by her in the suit. It was thus also sought to be alleged by way of an additional plea that "even otherwise the suit property was and is the Joint Hindu Family ancestral and coparcenary property in the hands of Jagtar Singh, so the plaintiffs is not entitled to the share of property as claimed by her, if proved to be the daughter of Jagtar Singh. " The application for amendment of written statement was considered by the trial court and it on a consideration of the matter dismissed the same by order dated 13. 10. 1993 by observing that the amendment of written statement will change the nature of defence and it will re-open the case from the first stage. Hence this revision at the instance of the defendants.