Banta Singh vs Mal Singh and others

A.D. Koshal, J.—The following pedigree-table indicates the relationship between the parties to the suit out of which this petition u/s 115 of the CPC has arisen:�

The plaintiff in the suit is Mal Singh who claims to be the son of Inder Singh, brother of Banta Singh defendant No. 1. According to him, the property in dispute had been inherited by him from his father Inder Singh who, in turn, had succeeded to it from his own father Likal Singh. Amar Singh and Sohan Singh are the two contesting defendants who claim the property on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed in their favour by Inder Singh, the last male holder. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application under rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC praying for permission to amend the plaint by the addition therein of an averment-that the property in the hand of Inder Singh was ancestral qua the parties. The amendment was allowed by the trial Court on the ground that the said averment was already a part of the plaint though it was concerned in different language. The order of the Court allowing the amendment is now attacked before me in revision by Banta Singh defendant.

That the averment, which had been allowed by the trial Court to be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment is already there, cannot be denied in view of the fact that the plaint, as originally framed, '' contained an assertion that Inder Singh, the last male holder of the property in dispute, had inherited it from his father Likal Singh. If this assertion be correct, it would have the consequence of making the property ancestral in the hands of Inder Singh, Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that in this the matter the amendment is unnecessary. He further contends that it is not relevant for the decision of the case in as much as the fact of the property being ancestral has leased to be of any consequence after the enactment of Punjab Act No. 12 of 1973. It may be that the assertion allowed to be in corporated by the amendment is really a repetition of an averment already contained in the plaint. And then I cannot regard the amendment as unnecessary inasmuch as it is certainly calculated to make the position clear and to obviate a possible objection from the side of the defendants that the property had nowhere in the plaint been claimed to be ancestral in so many words. In so far as the relevant of the amendment is concerned, the point can be raised on merits during the proceedings in the suit and it is not for the Court to decide it at the amendment stage.

For the reasons stated, I do not find any fault with the impugned order. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.