JAI SINGH Vs. PRITHI SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. Roda the predecessor -in -interest of the Respondents 1 to 4 along with Respondent No. 5 filed a suit for declaration and injunction on the allegations that Sh. Dallu, grandfather of the Plaintiff, was the owner in possession of the suit land. This Dallu as per Plaintiffs was having four sons, namely Tulsi, Mela, Roda and Khushia and one daughter Rakho. After the death of Dallu, his entire property devolved upon his sons and daughter. Mella, Khushia and Tulsi died issue less and, therefore, father of the Plaintiffs inherited their share in the suit property. It was also pleaded that Defendants and their mother Kartari procured a forged will of the share of Sh.Khushia in their favour. However, it was claimed that Kartari was not at all related to Sh. Khushia. Plaintiffs claim themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit land and as such sought declaration to that effect. As a consequential relief permanent injunction was asked for.

(2.) Alternative case of the Plaintiffs as pleaded has been that in case will was proved to be a genuine document, in that event, Defendants had no more right than the share of the Plaintiffs in the suit land. The Defendants contested the suit and issues had been framed.

(3.) After the evidence had been recorded, the Plaintiffs preferred a petition under. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to include the pleadings regarding nature and basis of rights claimed by them. The amendment sought to be introduced in the plaint was as under: