NIRMAL KUMAR SHAHABADI Vs. LALIT KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted Title Suit No.22/2006 in the Court of Munsif at Giridih for declaration of his title on the suit land and confirmation of his possession and restraint upon the defendants for making any interference in his possession also seeking permanent injunction at the time of final adjudication. Scheduled land comprises 28 decimals of land out of 20.50 acres of Survey Plot No. 289, Khata No.73, Mauza Barmasia, Thana No.230, Giridih comprised in Municipal Holding No.832 of Ward No.3 (old) of Giridih Municipality. Petitioner set up his case on the assertion made in the plaint that his father had acquired a piece of land described in the schedule and was paying rent to the then landlord Shri Shanti Kumar Mishra at a particular annual rent. On 18th June 1953 Shanti Kumar Mishra executed a registered sale deed in respect of all his rights in favour of the plaintiff. However, there was some mistake in the plot number which was wrongly mentioned as 282 instead of 289. At the time of vesting of Zamindari under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, landlord Shanti Kumar Mishra submitted return and sought compensation in Compensation Case No. 315/1954-55 wherein at serial no.281 the name of the father of the plaintiff together with Plot No.289, area and rent were correctly mentioned. Plaintiff has been paying rent and municipal taxes. Defendants have illegally asserted claim over the suit land on the basis of two sale deeds in the name of his mother and wife - defendant nos. 2 and 3. The sale deeds produced by the defendants showed Khata No. 737/235 which does not include Plot No.289. When the defendant no.4 tried to put up compound wall by use of force with the favour of Police force to take forceful possession over the suit land, petitioner had a cause of action on 25th February 2006 to move the learned court for the instant relief.

(3.) After written statement were filed by the defendants, plaintiff prayed for an amendment in the plaint through a petition dated 31st May 2006. Plaintiff asserted that some important documents relating to title and possession were misplaced and could not be available when the suit was drafted and presented in the Court. Therefore, plaint requires amendment. Plaintiff proposed an amendment to incorporate the averments that the suit property is claimed by way of sale deed dated 29th October 1945 by Birijawa, Mossomat Bedani and Lachhamia Kumari in favour of his father.