(1.) Heard.
(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent-Sita Ram filed a suit in which the prayer made was to the effect that a decree of declaration be granted in his favour holding him to be the owner in joint possession of the property and also for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from interfering in his possession. The main dispute raised in the suit was that the property of Shri Boota Ram had wrongly been mutated in favour of Smt. Biasan Devi and, therefore, Smt. Biasan Devi had no right to transfer any land in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 and the sale made in their favour was null and void.
(3.) The only amendment which has been allowed by the learned trial Court is that the plaintiff has been permitted to pray for a decree of possession also. The main objection of Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, to this amendment being allowed is that the prayer as per the amendment application is that in case, the plaintiff is not held entitled to the decree as already prayed for, then his suit be decreed for possession. The misgiving of the petitioners is unsound. It is only if the plaintiff establishes some right in the land, then only he can be entitled to possession. Unless, he establishes a right in the land, obviously no decree can be granted in his favour.