SUKHDEO MANDAL Vs. KALU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil revisions are directed against the same order dated 3.7.97 passed by the 6th Subordinate. Judge, Bhagalpur, in Title Suit No. 329 as 1984 allowing amendment in the plaint.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS , 26 in number, have filed the aforementioned suit for declaration that they have got full right, title and interest in the suit property in which the defendants have no right, title or interest by virtue of the entries in the survey record of rights. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Muni Ram, Pirthi Ram, and Gaibi Nath Mandal. According to them their said ancestors were Raiyats of 4 bighas 13 kathas of Bhit land and 2 bighas 1 katha of homestead land under Babu Suraj Mohan Thakur and Suresh Mohan Thakur, ex landlords. At the time of veeting of the estate, the said landlords filed returns with respect to the lands in question in their names. Accordingly Jamabandi was created in their names. The plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the lands and to have paid up to date rent. However, during recent municipal survey the lands in question were recorded in the name of Laxmi Narayan Choudhary, predecessor in interest of the defendants casting cloud of doubt over plaintiffs' right, title and interest. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE impugned order has been challenged both by the so called plaintiffs second set in C.R. No. 1654 of 1997 and the defendants in C.R. No. 1666 of 1997. Mr. Md. Shah Jehan Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioners in C.R. No. 1654 of 1997, submitted that the impugned order is likely to cause serious prejudice to the petitioners, for it amounts to changing their status from Raiyats to under Raiyats (under so called plaintiffs 1st set). He also submitted that the amendment, if allowed to stand, would change the nature of the suit. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 11 (Opp. party Nos. 1 to 10) submitted that having regard to the inter se dispute between the plaintiffs, it may not be proper to allow them to prosecute the suit jointly, which is likely to create difficulties both to the Court as well as to the parties; it would, therefore, be appropriate to transpose one of the sets to the category of defendants. He submitted that the proper course would be to transpose the petitioners herein to the category of defendants because as defendants they can not only contest the plaintiffs' claim but also establish that they are Raiyats with respect to the lands in question in their own right.