SARITA PRASAD Vs. NAND KISHORE PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 11/9/2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Div.-IV, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 26 of 2011 whereby the petition filed by the defendant No.1/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

(3.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the plaintiffs (the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) filed Title Suit No. 26 of 2011 in the Court of the Munsif, Hazaribagh against the defendants praying therein for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and in the alternative, for recovery of possession and also declaring the sale-deed dtd. 9/11/2004 as illegal, void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the land appertaining to Khata No. 42, Plot Nos. 57, 59, 60, 69, 478, 481, 482, 484, 485 and 487, Village-Kadma, P.S-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh, measuring an area of 13.30 Acres was recorded in the names of Prayag Kandu, Baijnath Kandu and Ramfal Kandu. In the year 1940, the recorded Raiyats filed Partition Suit No. 3 of 1940 which was decreed in terms of compromise on 18/4/1941 and in the said partition, the land measuring an area of 1.15 Acres, out of total area of 2.28 Acres in Plot No. 102 of Khata No. 42 was allotted to the share of the defendant Nos. 10 to 17 of that suit i.e. Partition Suit No. 3 of 1940 and the remaining area of 1.13 Acres towards southern side was allotted to the share of the defendant Nos. 1 to 9 of Partition Suit No. 3 of 1940. It was stated in the plaint that no land was allotted in Plot No. 102 of Khata No. 42 to the branch of Prayag Kandu in the said partition. However, the defendant No.2 being the descendants of Prayag Kandu without having any right, title, interest and possession over the land of Plot No. 102 of Khata No. 42 transferred the part of the land to the defendant No.l by virtue of registered sale-deed dtd. 09/11/2004 and as such the said sale-deed is sham and void. In the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement stating therein that she purchased the land by virtue of registered sale-deed from the defendant No.2 (the respondent No.3 herein) and got her name mutated in the revenue records. The rent receipts are being issued by the revenue authorities and she is in possession over the same. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C seeking amendment in the written statement which was objected by the plaintiffs claiming that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit. The Court below in terms with the impugned order dtd. 11/9/2017 rejected the said petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.