SARVJEET SINGH Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh dated 6.11.1998 filed by Sarvjeet Singh whereby his prayer for amendment of the plaint made under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was refused. This prayer arose in the following circumstances :

(2.) SARVJEET Singh instituted suit for declaration to the effect that S.C.O. No. 1108-1109 Sector 22-B, Chandigarh had been purchased in the name of Mrs. Jagjit Kaur etc. defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 by Gurdial Singh by sale of movable and immovable properties belonging to him (Sarvjeet Singh) and that he is owner of the said property to the extent of its 1/2 share as being the real brother of Gurdial Singh. Sarvjeet Singh is the younger brother of Gurdial Singh. Defendant Smt. Jagjit Kaur is Gurdial Singh's wife. Defendant Jasmer Kaur is mother-in-law of Gurdial Singh. Defendants Miss Sonia Bal and Vikram Bal are Gurdial Singh's minor children. Sarvjeet Singh's mother died in the year 1966 at Bikaner when Sarvjeet Singh was aged about 12 years. It was a joint Hindu family comprising him, Gurdial Singh, their two sisters and their father Inder Singh. In the year 1974, their father Inder Singh also died. Residential house had been built by the resourses of their father in the name of Sarvjeet Singh and Gurdial Singh. Gurdial Singh defendant did not have any saving. He was earning Rs. 2000/- per month including allowances and he did not have any saving capacity. He did not have any bank balance. With increase in income of Gurdial Singh, his expenses also increased because of his children having reached the school. Besides salary income, Gurdial Singh had no other source of income. His wife and other defendants did not have any source of income. In nutshell, Sarvjeet Singh's case was that S.C.O. No. 1108-1109 had been purchased by Gurdial Singh out of the income provided by him and, therefore, he was real owner to the extent of 1/2 share of S.C.O. No. 1108-1109. Gurdial Singh took general power of attorney from him for managing the immovable properties belonging to him and the properties left by their father and mother. He had given him power of attorney in good faith believing that he will look after the properties and render him true and faithful account. He sold his share of the properties and made collections as mentioned in para No. 8 of the plaint but did not render him account and invested the collections in the purchase of the shop in dispute. Defendants Smt. Jagjit Kaur etc. alone are not purchasers but he is also the purchaser to the extent of 1/2 share of S.C.O. No. 1108-1109.

(3.) BY way of amendment of plaint, plaintiff wanted to incorporate para Nos. 10-A and 10-B in the plaint, which read as follows :-