RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. VATAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/defendants, Rajendra Singh and others, have preferred this second appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.05.2009 passed by learned District Judge (FT) No. 1, Hanumangarh, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants being Civil Appeal No. 02/2008 (55/07) - Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. Vatan Singh & Ors., came to be dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Hanumangarh, in Civil Original Suit No. 06/2005 (30/04) - Vatan Singh & ors. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., whereby the learned trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 16.05.1974.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit on 25.05.2004 before learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hanumangarh for specific performance of agreement dated 16.05.1974. In the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents averred that father of the defendants, late Saudagar Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives, Rajendra Singh and others, entered into an agreement with respect to land situated in Chak No. 34 STG of Stone No. 7/336 ad -measuring 15 Bigha and Stone No. 6/336 ad -measuring 10 Biswa, total 16 Bigha and 10 Biswa for a consideration of Rs. 49,500/ - with the mother of plaintiffs - Vatan Singh and others, namely, Smt. Sukhwant Kaur W/o Ujagar Singh. The possession of the land in question was also taken. The respondents/plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the respondents/plaintiffs, Vatan Singh and others filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in their plaint. By filing this application, the plaintiffs sought to amend the Chak number mentioned in the agreement itself as their mother Smt. Sukhwant was illiterate. According to plaintiffs, in the agreement Chak No. 34 STG, Stone No. 7/336 and Stone No. 6/336 were wrongly mentioned in place of Chak No. 7/336 measuring 4 Bigha 10 Biswa and Stone No. 9/334, 8/334, measuring 12 Bigha. A reply to the said application was filed by the defendants while opposing the same.