ALOK KUMAR SINHA Vs. ANIL KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the interlocutory applications were filed by the original appellant(plaintiff), namely, Ajit Kumar Singh, who died on 21/7/2020 and his legal heirs have already been substituted in the memo of appeal vide order No. 24 dtd. 18/7/2022. The interlocutory applications Nos. 3292 of 2018 and 3293 of 2018 are hereinafter referred to as 'I.A. No. 3292' and 'I.A. No. 3293' respectively.

(2.) I.A. No. 3292 has been filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C.') with a prayer to permit the appellant to make an amendment in the plaint by adding a new paragraph No. 22 d1/2 which is as follows :-

(3.) Mr. J.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the relevant facts leading to these interlocutory applications are that one late Ramprit Ram got 1 Bigha land, out of 5 Bighas 10 Katha of land in his share in partition of joint family property, of which details have been given in the plaint. The said Ramprit Ram sold his one Bigha land to his uncle late Surat Ram and one relative of his uncle, namely, Jai Ram Mahto on 12/8/1926. Later on, both the persons sold 10 kathha land out of the said land to one Padarath Ram on 8/4/1936 but since the consideration amount was not paid, so, that sale deed became null and void. Later, Jai Ram Mahto and one Vishwanath, son of late Surat Ram, sold the said 1 Bigha land purchased from Ramprit Ram, along with other lands to one Awadh Bihari Prasad on 8/11/1944 and put him in possession over the said sold lands. Thereafter, one namely, Fateh Bahadur, who was a senior law practioner of Chapra purchased the said land from Awadh Bihari Prasad on 5/9/1945 in the name of his brother-in-law (sarhu) Jagarnath Prasad @ Tuntun Babu through benami sale and the said Jagarnath Prasad @ Tuntun Babu executed a registered Ladavi deed in the name of Fateh Bahadur claiming and showing himself as "NAME LENDER" on 8/8/1952 and later on, the said 1 bigha land was partitioned in the family of late Fateh Bahadur who had one more brother, namely, late Kapildeo Narayan and the plaintiff/original appellant and the substituted appellants are the descendants of late Kapildeo Narayan and finally, the plaintiff and his brother got 10 Katha land out of 1 Bigha through the partition suit No. 44 of 1969 and the said 10 katha land was again partitioned between the plaintiff and his own brother Anjanee Kumar Sinha and both got 5 Katha land each. Likewise, the descendants of Fateh Bahadur also got their share in the land partitioned. It is further submitted that the legal heirs of Fateh Bahadur and the brother of plaintiff sold their entire share in the said 1 Bigha land which originally belonged to late Ramprit Ram and all the purchasers came in possession over the sold land and constructed different houses upon it also. The plaintiff's share came to 5 Katha land which he used to give on rent to several persons time to time and Bhusa business was also started by the plaintiff on his land, which is under dispute, with one Lal Babu Rai, brother of defendant No. 2. The said Lal Babu Rai executed one deed of agreement on 5/7/1984 (Ext. -5). Later on, Lal Babu Rai left the business and Bhusa business was closed. It is further submitted that one of the heirs of late Fateh Bahadur sold one katha land to one Lalan Prasad, who in turn sold the same to one Pramod Kumar Singh, own brother of defendant No. 1 in the month of January, 1989, thereafter both the defendants/respondents approached the plaintiff/appellant with a request to give his entire 5 Katha of land equally to them for doing Bhusa and Gitti business separately, to which the plaintiff agreed and he gave his land on the rent of Rs.500.00 to each of them on monthly basis and the rent was paid up to December 1997, but thereafter, the defendants stopped the payment of rent and when the plaintiff asked them to vacate his land, only then the defendants declared that they had purchased 2 katha 10 dhur each out of the suit land from one Pramod Kumar on 13/10/1999, and then the plaintiff filed his suit with the pleading that both the defendants had got no title as the so-called Pramod Kumar had no right to execute the said sale deeds in favour of the defendants with regard to the lands in question as he had no relationship with the family of late Sheo Govind Sah, an ancestor of the family of Ramprit Ram. Later on, the plaintiff came to know that the said Pramod Kumar, supposed to be the son of Harihar Prasad, was not the son of Harihar Prasad and then he investigated the said fact and came to know through documentary evidence got under the Right to Information Act that the said Harihar Prasad had no son and in his family, there were only two persons. Learned counsel lastly submits that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy and the amendment will not change the nature of the suit and during the pendency of this appeal, in the year 2012, the plaintiff/original appellant came to know that the alleged Pramod Kumar, the executant of the so-called sale deeds, is a fake person having no relationship with the family of Harihar Prasad and then he filed a petition on 3/1/2012 before the Public Information Officer- cum-Khand Vikash Adkhikari, Ganda, U.P. and after much efforts and finally on the direction of the State Commission given in the second appeal preferred by the appellant, the required information was provided to the appellant in written form by way of Family Register as Annexure- '6A' to the I.A. No. 3293 and other Annexures 1 to 6 series are the relevant documents which show the appellant's attempt to get the said information under the Right to Information Act and all these documents may be accepted as additional evidence as it come in the purview of Rule 27 of Order 41 of C.P.C. and for doing the substantive justice, the documentary evidence should be accepted and by accepting these annexures as documentary evidence, the nature of the suit will not change and no new cause of action will arise in favour of the plaintiff as the evidence can be deemed to be only an extending part of the main pleading of the plaintiff.