MAHARAJA MANINDRA CHANDRA NANDI BAHADUR Vs. RANGALAL MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain chowkidari chakran lands. The suit was filed on the 3rd March 1911. The plaint set out the resumed lands in a schedule containing 9 plots of land of an area of 26 bighas said to be of the value of Rs. 305. On the 16th August 1911 an application was made for what was called an amendment of this plaint and was granted on the 29th August 1931. The result of this order was that the suit became one for 59 plots in lieu of 9 plots of an area of 69 bighas instead of 26 bighas and for lands of the value of Rs. 705 instead of Rs. 305. The question, therefore, which first arises is whether this so-called amended plaint includes or pot the lands set out in the schedule of the unamended plaint. If it does so, what are those lands? If there are such lands the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree in respect of the same. If there are no such lands then the case must be dealt with as stated later on in this judgment. I may here observe that the Subordinate Judge in his judgment says that "the plaintiffs struck out all the plots claimed at first and put in new plots altogether of more value than that of plots claimed originally." It is not, however, clear to me whether the Subordinate Judge by that statement meant to find or had it in his mind that none of the plots added were included in the original plaint. From an inspection of the plaint it appears that the schedule was erased and it may be that it was to this fact that the Subordinate Judge referred. It, therefore, becomes necessary, as I said, to definitely ascertain whether the so called amended plaint includes any lands as set out in the schedule to the unamended plaint.

(2.) The next point which we consider is as regards such lands as were added on the 16th August 1911 and were not included in the original plaint. The question which arises as regards such lands is, when was the suit instituted as regards them.

(3.) For the respondent it is contended that the suit was instituted as regards all the lands on the 3rd March 1911 when the plaint was received. It might be so if this were a case of amendment proper; but this is not so, because this is not a case of amendment properly so called, but a case of an addition of entirely new lands, and, therefore, as regards such new lands the suit which is taken to have been filed will date from the date when the claim was made in respect thereof, namely, on the 16th August 1911. Therefore, as regards all lands not included in the plaint at first filed, the suit must be taken to have been instituted on the 16th August 1911. As regards all lands not included in the plaint at first filed there are two dates upon which it may be argued that the suit can be taken to have been instituted, namely, either on the 16th of August 1911 when the application was made for amendment or on the 29th August 1911 when the application was granted, Something may be said on behalf of either of these dates, but we are in favour of the respondent s view of taking the earlier date, namely, the 16th August 1911, seeing that this is a point which is not seriously contested. We therefore, hold that as regards all lands not included in the plaint as first filed, the suit must be taken to have been instituted on the 16th August 1911.