SHANKAR ORAON Vs. MEENA ORAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dtd. 24/8/2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I at Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No.916 of 2024 arising out of Original Suit No.12 of 2014 whereby the petition filed for amendment has been rejected by the learned Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners instituted the Original Suit No.12 of 2014 for declaration that the defendant No.1 has only right to live in the house situated over suit land/property along with her unmarried female children, being the widow of predeceased son of one of the recorded tribal tenants, coming from Oraon community of Chhotanagpur and she has no right to alienate any part of the suit land property in favour of any one in view of customary law of 'Oraons' of Chhotanagpur or to any way command upon plaintiffs to vacate the half of the suit land/property in absentia any process of law or to any way disturb the peaceful possession of plaintiffs over suit land/property either personally or through police personnels in absentia process of law. He submits that the said suit has been proceeded and the witnesses of both the sides have been examined and the matters have reached at the stage of argument and at that stage a petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been filed which has been rejected by the learned Court. He submits that the amendment was only with regard to Column-4 of the Khatian that the said land was granted to the two recorded tenants as per oral settlement by the tenure holder for twelve years only and on elapse of said period the said land was taken back by the tenure holder of khewat No.6 of the village and the same was subsequently gifted exclusively to Etwa Oraon and his family members by a registered deed of Gift No.3378 of the year 1950. He submits that the said was formal amendment in spite of that the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same which may kindly be allowed.