THAKUR MAHTO Vs. JIRA DEVI ALIAS JIRO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as also counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) In this revision petition the petitioners, who were defendants in Title (Partition) Suit No. 31 of 1990, pending in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge I. Biharsharif, have assailed an order dated 2.12.1995, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, whereby he has allowed a petition filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs proposing some amendments in their plaint.

(3.) The amendment petition had been filed on 8.11.1995 proposing amendment, as appears from the copy of the petition for amendment annexed as Annexure-1 to this revision petition, which was mainly related to some facts constituting fraud in the execution of a deed of gift and a deed of sale. The plaintiffs had filed title suit for partition and the defendants-petitioners herein had filed their written statement on 4.9.1992, in which they had taken stand that some of the subject matter of the partition as included in the plaint has been acquired by them under a deed of gift executed long back in the year 1967 and some under a sale-deed also a very old one. The amendment petition had been filed on 8.11.1995 and the learned Counsel for the petitioners has strongly contended that the amendment was proposed after more than three years from the filing of the written statement on 4.9.1992 when the plaintiffs opposite parties herein became aware of the stand taken by the defendants petitioners about acquiring rights over the suit properties by virtue of a deed of gift and a deed of sale. According to his submission, the opposite parties plaintiffs could make amendment alleging fraud in the execution of the deed of gift or scale deed only within three years from the date of filing of the written statement. Relying on a recent decision in the case of Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh and Ors. , he has contended that in similar situation the Supreme Court has held that amendment petition could not be allowed. So the crux of the argument is that the defendants-petitioners have already acquired a right in view of the provision of Article 56 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that the deed of gift and the deed of A sale could not be challenged on the ground of fraud after expiry of three years period from the date of knowledge and the plaintiffs must be deemed to have knowledge about the document on 4.9.1992 and so when the petition proposing amendment was filed on 8.11.1995, it was definitely time barred and the plaintiffs could not challenge the documents on the ground of fraud made after expiry of the three years period from 4.9.1992.