RAM SINGH Vs. SOMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, dated Dec. 19, 1985, whereby the application of the revisionist Ram Singh (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 4 as he is as such in the Civil Suit concerned) for amendment of his written statement in suit filed by respondent, Soma Devi and Indra Devi (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) against defendant No. 4 and four others being defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and pro forma defendant No. 5 in the plaint concerned, was dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are not disputed. The plaintiffs are real sisters to each other and one of the plaintiffs Smt. Soma Devi is wife of defendant No. 4 who initially lived as husband and wife for some time but have started living separately now for some time on account of some estrangement between the two. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge at Mandi, wherein they asserted that they were owners in possession of land contained in khata khatoni No. 53 min/99 min, khasra No. 308 measuring O.43 bighas and a house standing thereon which has been shown in the 'Aks Tatima' attached with the plaint to be standing on khasra No. 308/2 on land measuring O.3.15 bighas in equal shares. It was further averred that initially the plaintiffs were in possession of this house but subsequently when defendants Nos. 1 to 4 started interfering with their possession, they instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession. During the pendency of this suit, however, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 took forcible possession of this house and put the defendant Yadopati, defendant No. 3 in possession of this house, as tenant of defendant No. 4 which was, of course, illegal and improper. The plaintiffs, therefore, withdrew that suit and filed the instant suit for possession of this house with the averments that defendant No. 4 had no right, title or interest in this property so as to induct defendant No. 3 Yadopati as tenant in the said house and the possession of said Yadopati thereon is that of a trespasser, they have, therefore, sought the relief of possession of the house and also mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, w.e.f. 10-9-1980 when defendants Nos. 1 to 4 took forcible. possession of this house and illegally put defendant No. 3 in possession thereof. The suit was instituted on June 2, 1981.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 contested this suit and in their joint written statement, they denied that the plaintiffs had any right, title or interest in the house in suit and asserted that as a matter of fact the house in question was in the ownership and possession of defendant No. 4 and that later on defendant No. 4 inducted defendant No. 3 Yadopati as tenant in this house on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- on July 3, 1980 and that this house was constructed by defendant No. 4 in 1973 whereafter he himself ran a hotel therein for some time and alter he gave it on rent from time to time to different people. An alternative plea was also taken on behalf of defendant No. 4 that in any case even in his ownership qua the house in question is not proved, since he has been in possession thereof for more than 12 years in open and hostile manner, this adverse possession of his thereon has ripened into ownership.