BHOPAL SINGH Vs. BHAGWAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision by the defendants-petitioners has been filed against the order dated Aug. 1, 1977 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pali, whereby he allowed the plaintiff-non-petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed and possession in the Court of Munsif, Pali, on Feb. 22, 1968 against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 who are petitioners before me and defendant No. 5 who is the father of the plaintiff-non-petitioner. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is that his father during his minority without caring for his interest sold agricultural land bearing khasra No. 125 measuring 99 bighas 6 biswas situate in village Chatelav, Tehsil and District Pali by a registered sale-deed on Aug. 18, 1965, that the sale was made by his father (defendant No. 5) without thinking for the benefit of his person and property at the instigation of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 (petitioners) and as such, the registered sale-deed is illegal and not acceptable to him and is liable to be cancelled. According to the plaintiff, the suit land was worth Rs. 10,000 but it was sold by his father for Rs. 2,000 though in fact, nothing was paid by the defendants-vendees to the defendant-vendor, the father. According to the plaintiff, this was done by practising fraud. In para 7 of the plaint, it was stated by the plaintiff that the defendants-vendees did not pay even Rs. 2,000 to the defendant-vendor and the payment of Rs. 2,000 was got admitted by him, that he had received this sum as back as four years preceding the date of registration. On the basis of these facts, it was alleged in the plaint that the suit land was transferred without consideration and as such, the plaintiff is not bound by the same. In these circumstances, it was prayed that (i) the sale-deed dated Aug. 18, 1965 "which is in respect of the plaintiff's land bearing khasra No. 125 may be cancelled and its possession may be restored to him. The suit was resisted by the defendants-petitioners on various grounds. It was pleaded that the suit as framed was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court. It was contended in the written, statement that as the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the sale is void and was claiming possession of the agricultural land by treating the defendants-petitioners as trespassers, the suit was not cognizable bv a Civil Court.

(3.) Issue No. 2 framed by the trial court covering the objection relating to the jurisdiction of the court. This issue was decided by the trial court against the defendants-petitioners on Dec. 7, 1974 holding that the suit is cognizable by a Civil Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendants-petitioners preferred S. B. Civil Revision No. 114 of 1975, petitioner Bhopalsingh and others v. Non-petitioners Bhagwansingh and others, in this court. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted an application for the amendment of the plaint. In that application, the plaintiff sought permission for the amendment of the plaint under O. VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C. to delete the allegations contained in para 7 of the plaint. This court, vide its order dated Jan. 20, 1977, allowed the revision application in part and set aside the, order dated Dec. 7, 1974 and the case was sent back for disposal of issue No. 2 relating to the jurisdiction afresh after deciding the application under Order VI, Rule 17, read with Section 151, C.P.C. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this court, the defendants-vendees submitted reply to the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and contested it principally on the ground that if para No. 7 is deleted, the nature of the suit would be changed and that would adversely affect the issue regarding the jurisdiction and as such, the amendment should not be allowed. The defendants submitted an application on July 15, 1977 stating therein that before disposing of the application for amendment of the plaint, issue No. 2 regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in its present form may be heard and disposed of first. The learned Civil Judge dismissed that application and heard arguments on the application for the amendment of the plaint. The application for the amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned Civil Judge on Aug. 1, 1977 on payment of Rs. 100 as costs to the defendants-petitioners within a week or to deposit the same and it was ordered that on this being done, permission is accorded for deleting para No. 7 of the plaint.