SUMITRA DEVI Vs. YOGENDRA CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the plaintiffs is directed against an order by which prayer for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

(2.) THE suit in question i.e. Title Suit No.9 of 1983 was originally instituted by Ramdeo Choudhary against Mahadeo Choudhary seeking his eviction from the disputed premises. Both of them are since dead and are represented by their legal heirs as plaintiffs and defendants respectively. Shortly stated, the plaintiffs&apos case is that by virtue of private partition between the original plaintiff and the original defendant, holding no.1 (new) of R.S. plot no. 1764 situated at Sikandarpur in Muzaffarpur town, of which the disputed premises is a pan", was allotted to the plaintiffs&apos share in February 1976. The plaintiff got his name recorded in the revenue records as well as the municipal records and has been paying rent and taxes. The defendant approached him making a request to allow him to occupy the disputed premises as licencee for sometime till he re -models and renovates his residential house at Nazirpur, which had been allotted to him in the said partition. The defendant has since re -modelled and renovated his said Nazirpur residential house and, infact, shifted part of his family and belongings but holding over in this disputed premises with some of his family members and has refused to vacate in spite of repeated demands. According to the plaintiff, it was agreed upon that if the defendant fails to hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises by the end of 1976 he will be liable to pay damages by way of house rent @ Rs. 200/ - per month. Despite repeated demands not a single paisa has been paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that besides his own personal need to carry on the business of trade in toddy, he has a large family consisting of two wives and six sons, one of whom was married. The plaintiff, thus, reasonably and in good faith required the disputed premises for accommodation of himself and wives and children.

(3.) AFTER the suit was restored, on 15.9.98 the plaintiffs filed the application for amendment of the plaint, seeking addition of paragraph nos. 6 (a), the substitution of existing paragraph 7 and addition of new paragraphs 7(a) to 7(e). Certain amendments in the relief portion and the cause title were also sought. Broadly speaking, the proposed amendment can be clubbed in three parts. They relate to statements with respect to exclusive title of the plaintiffs, increased need of the premises on account of the grown size of the family during the intervening period and perpetuation of the plaintiffs&apos possession over the disputed premises following the delivery of possession effected in their favour on 4.9.90 pursuant to the decree dated 23.12.89.