RATTAN LAL Vs. RAJENDER SON OF ANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 12.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal whereby application for amendment of plaint was rejected.

(2.) AS per the averments made in the petition, Ant Ram defendant No.2(since deceased) was owner in possession of agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of village Rasolaka as well as village Allika, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad. The aforesaid land was ancestral coparcenary property and the parties have a right in it by birth. Shri Ant Ram relinquished hisall rights, title and interest in favour of the petitioners as well as respondent being his sons vide settlement dated 14.1.1988 and parties came in possession of their respective shares. However, the revenue record continued in the name of Ant Ram and in order to avoid any legal complication, Shri Ant Ram asked the petitioners as well as respondent to get the revenue record corrected in their favour. Petitioners and Ant Ram asked the respondent on 27.9.2001 forexecution of necessary documents with regard to change of ownership of the aforesaid land. Respondent No.1 taking benefit of the absence of the petitioners got executed relinquishment deeds from Ant Ram in his favour on 27.9.2001 by fraud and misrepresentation, which were not to the knowledge of petitioner. On coming to know about the said document, the petitioner challenged the relinquishment deed dated 27.9.2001 allegedly executed by Ant Ram in favour of respondent No.1 with regard to land of village Allika, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad. The said suit is pending before the trial Court at the preliminary stage as the evidence is yet to be recorded. It is further averred in the petition that in February 2007, the respondent threatened to dispossess the petitioners from the land of village Rasolaka on the basis of relinquishment deed dated 27.9.2001. On inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that in fact two relinquishment deeds were got executed by respondent No.1 from Ant Ram on 27.9.2001 by fraud and misrepresentation but the petitioners were not in the knowledge about the relinquishment deed relating to village Rasolaka. Thus, on coming to know the aforesaid fact and in order to avoid any multiplicity of litigation, petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint by challenging the relinquishment deed dated 27.9.2001 pertaining to village Rasolaka, Tehsil Palwal District Faridabad. However, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.5.2008 rejected the aforesaid application challenging aforesaid order.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, in the present suit, the challenge is to the relinquishment deed dated 27.9.2001 which was allegedly executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the land situated at village Allika, Tehsil Palwal, whereas by way of present application for amendment, the petitioners want to challenge the relinquishment deed dated 27.9.2001 regarding the land situated at village Rasolaka Tehsil Palwal. It is also not in dispute that relinquishment deed regarding the land situated at village Rasolaka is different from the relinquishment deed pertaining to village Allika, which is under challenge in the present suit. Thus, the facts sought to be incorporated by way of proposed amendment are not necessary at all for deciding the controversy involved in the present case. The trial Court was right while observing that if the plaintiff wants to challenge the relinquishment deed regarding land situated at village Rasolaka, they can challenge the same in a separate suit. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed.