BANO GOPE Vs. SURAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff of a title suit pending in the court of the second Additional Munsif, Begusarai. He is aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsif, dated the 6th February, 1971, whereby his petition for amendment of his plaint has been rejected.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the 1st July, 1969. In the plaint two schedules were appended. Schedule I was with respect to 14 kathas 7 dhurs of land comprised in Plots Nos. 26, 27 and 28 of village Amarpur Kiratpur. Schedule II related to approximately 1 katha out of the land of Schedule I falling towards Plots Nos, 24 and 25 which belong to the defendants. In regard to Schedule I land it was mentioned in the first paragraph of the plaint that the plaintiff had taken settlement in respect of it from the then landlord for agricultural purpose by virtue of a hukumnama in the year 1350 Fasli, In paragraph 7 of the plaint it was alleged that the defendants, who had land on the boundary, had the advantage of amalgamating and dispossessing the plaintiff by and by from the land which he had taken in settlement and they had, in fact, forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from Schedule II land in the month of Baisakh, 1373 Fasli. The reliefs which the plaintiff claimed were firstly, an adjudication, on the facts, to declare him to be bona fide settlee from defendant 2nd party with a right to retain possession over the settled land and as such for declaration of his title and confirmation thereof. The second relief claimed was for a decree for recovery of possession over Schedule II land and for restoring the land to the plaintiff by evicting the defendants through court. Certain consequential reliefs were also claimed which it is not necessary to refer at this stage.

(3.) On the 5th February, 1971, the suit was transferred to the court of the second Additional Munsif from the permanent court and on the same day the plaintiff put in a petition for amendment of the plaint, praying substantively that during the pendency of the suit i.e., on the 31st January, 1971, the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiff from the entire area of 14 Kathas 7 dhurs of land mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint. This prayer of the plaintiff was naturally opposed on behalf of the defendants and it was rejected by the court substantively on the two grounds; one that it enlarged the dispute requiring an adjudication of the court and the second that it had been made at late stage and as such it was not bona fide.