DHANPAT RAM Vs. INDRA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21st Oct. , 2003 by which the first appellate court after allowing the amendment of the plaint set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 1st Sept. , 2001 and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for deciding the suit afresh after framing the issues de novo.

(3.) THE Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter claim of the defendants by judgment and decree dated 1st Sept. , 2001. Being aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent preferred regular first appeal. In the appeal, the plaintiff submitted application to amend the plaint. THE plaintiff submitted that plaintiff's father expired in the year 1969 and at the time of death of plaintiff's father, the plaintiff was of the age of only 10 years. THE plaintiff submitted that he had no knowledge of the full facts about the title of the property. He obtained the certified copies of the sale deed on 27. 08. 1998 and 27th Sept. , 1998. THE plaintiff by amendment wants to plead that the property, whose identity is not in dispute, was in the ownership of Redaram, Dhanpatrai and Rampartap and they sold it to Likhmichand by registered sale deed dated 17. 05. 1960. Likhmichand sold the property to plaintiff's father by registered sale deed dated 24. 08. 1962. According to plaintiff since plaintiff had no knowledge of the true and correct facts, therefore, mistake crept in the pleading. THE plaintiff further pleaded that by amendment, the nature of the suit will not be changed and amendment will be in the interest of justice as plaintiff's original case is that his father purchased the property in dispute and become owner of the property and after amendment of the plaint the stand of the plaintiff will be same. THE first appellate court allowed the amendment holding that the plaintiff claimed themselves to be owner of the property and he claimed the title to the property as it was purchased by plaintiff's father. THE first appellate court considered the Ex. 22 and Ex. 24, sale deeds and held that by allowing amendment, the nature of the suit will not be changed and case of the defendants will not be prejudiced, rather by permitting the amendment, the court will be able to reach to the right conclusion.