ANIL KUMAR Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Defendant, whereas, Respondents are the Plaintiffs and they will be referred to as such in this civil revision.

(2.) The Plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition of the suit property on the ground that they are co-owners in possession in equal shares but the Defendant is deriving the benefit out of the suit property. The Defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement alleging that father of the parites Badri Prashad, in a family arrangement, few days before his death, had granted irrevocable licence of the suit property to him which was in a dilapidated condition and was re-built by him. By filing an application under Section 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, the Defendant intends to take an alternative plea that he has been in continuous exclusive possession of the suit property as owner openly and adversely to the Plaintiffs in denial to their title. The Plaintiffs opposed the proposed amendments on the ground that these are so inconsistent and adverse to the earlier plea and if these are allowed, the case of the Plaintiffs will be badly prejudiced inasmuch as the admission made by the Defendant that the suit property was given to him as a licensee will stand withdrawn. The stand taken by the Plaintiffs in opposition to the proposed amendment found favour with the Sub Judge 1st class and the application has been dismissed by Order dated 14.10.1999 which has been assailed in the present revision petition.

(3.) This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.