LAWS(RAJ)-2026-3-37

MAN SINGH Vs. SMT. BHAGWATI KUNWAR

Decided On March 19, 2026
MAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
Smt. Bhagwati Kunwar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff laying a challenge to the order dtd. 28/1/2026 (Annx.7) passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Udaipur in Civil Regular Suit No. 125/2022 (C.I.S. No. 1320/2024) titled as 'Gulab Singh and Anr. vs. Bhagwati Kunwar' whereby, applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. on 27/11/2025 and 14/1/2026 seeking amendment of the plaint, have been rejected.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that a civil suit originally filed by Gulab Singh and Man Singh; now continued solely by Man Singh as Gulab Singh has passed away. The plaintiff claims sole ownership of property of Devi Singh; asserting Kesar Bai (widow of predeceased son Jorawar Singh) had only maintenance rights and was never remain possession of any portion of the suit property. It was submitted that Kesar Bai had earlier filed a suit on 13/1/1975, which was decided on the basis of compromise, wherein she presented an application in the suit stating that she had no rights in the suit property and had only maintenance rights against Gulab Singh. The compromise confirmed that she had no claim, but revenue records erroneously showed her name. It was further submitted that Kesar Bai allegedly executed gift deed dtd. 19/8/1982 in favour of Shambu Singh and later, sale deed dtd. 1/2/2007 in favor of respondent-defendant. The plaintiff has claimed the same as null and void. The respondent-defendant contended that Kesar Bai had possession, valid rights in suit property and that sale deed was lawful; however, disputes some family details and adoption claim. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff sought amendment in suit to also challenge gift deed dtd. 19/8/1982 but the trial court rejected amendment applications, citing delay and change in suit's nature vide order dtd. 28/1/2026, which is impugned herein.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.