Govind Nath Sahdeo vs Lal Damodar Nath Sahdeo

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Sub Judge-VIII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 210/2005 has allowed the amendment proposed by the plaintiff/respondent herein by the impugned order dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure-3).

Petitioner no. 1/defendant and the sole respondent i.e. plaintiff are real brothers being the son of Late Bara Lal Krishna Nath Sahdeo. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are wife and son of the petitioner no. 1. Parties are agitating common grievances in the instant Title Suit No. 210/2005 on the question of sale of certain property by the defendant in plot nos. 1167 and 1168 which is their property devolved through their father. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the sale deeds executed by the defendant/petitioner no. 1 in favour of Smt. Annapurna Devi and Ram Manohar Nath Sahdeo through two sale deeds on 24.01.2004 and 29.01.2004, are fraudulent and without consideration. The vendees are also relatives of the defendant and plaintiff. Defendant no. 4 has transferred the suit property in favour of her daughter in-law and grandson i.e. defendant nos. 2 and 3 who are petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein. Plaintiff alleges that by practicing fraud, land and building of the suit property has been got entered in the sale deed. With the aforesaid cause of action, plaintiff has sought adjudication of right, title and interest over an area of 17 kathas and 34 sq.ft to be declared with further relief that defendant no. 4 has no right to transfer the land and building situate at southern � 17 kathas 36 Sq.ft in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and said sale deeds are not binding upon the plaintiff.

From perusal of the amendment petition and from consideration of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that defendants/present petitioners were really aggrieved by certain modification sought to be made in the relevant portion of the plaint as proposed in para-IX, XI and XII of the amendment petition. Other amendments appear to be correction of certain figures in the main plaint at different places. Perusal of the amendment petition shows that in para-25 of the plaint, plaintiff sought deletion of sentence after 24.01.2005 and instead it should be read as '' for adjudication of right, title and interest of plaintiff over 17 kathas and 34 sq.ft of land with building fully described in the schedule be declared, possession be confirmed and if found out possession, a decree for recovery of possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff and defendants be dispossessed from the plot and plaintiff be put in Khas possession thereof. Learned Trial Court upon consideration of the petition for amendment and rejoinder filed by the defendants, found these amendments to be formal in natural and worthy of being allowed in the interest of justice with a cost of Rs. 500/-. It found that the plaintiff has sought certain correction in the relief A and B of the Plaint and also in the schedule of the suit property which was not indicated earlier.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no admission on the part of the defendants to allow such amendments which is an error of record.

The relevant material facts culled out from the pleadings on record go to show that the parties in the instant suit are litigating over the cause of action relating to the sale of certain properties claimed by the plaintiff to be his own and sold by the defendant no. 4 through fraudulent means and without consideration at the behest of the defendant no. 1 to his own wife and son by way of sale deeds. Relief sought in the suit is based upon the aforesaid bundle of facts which creates cause of action. Some modification in the relief portion would not change the entire nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the defendants who are entitled to contest the same.

In such circumstances, considering the import of the provisions of Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC and the stage of trial which had crossed the framing of issues, it cannot be said that grave prejudice could have been caused to the defendants/petitioners herein if proposed amendments are allowed, it would rather be in the interest of justice for effective adjudication of the suit. Consideration of all these facts and reasons indicated herein above lead this Court to the conclusion that the impugned order allowing proposed amendment, do not suffer from such illegality or perversity or are beyond the jurisdiction of the inferior Court which should be interfered in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, observations made in the impugned order that the defendants did not object to such amendments, will have no effect. Petitioners, if so advised, may have liberty to offer their additional written statement to the proposed amendments before the Court below. Writ petition is however dismissed with the aforesaid observations.