Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 191 (HP)

KUNDAN LAI AHUJA v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-07-24

M.R.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT (M.R. Verma, J.): This is plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying for amendment of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for damages in the sum of Rs. 5,24,000/- declaration that he is the owner of land comprised in Lot No. 119(b), Central Hotel Estate, Shimla on the basis of title and the revenue entries showing him owner - to the extent of 257 square yards of the land only, are illegal, void and inoperative and for permanent prohibitor injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property. In the plaint claiming the aforesaid reliefs, the plaintiff wants to insert by way of amendment of the plaint, the alternative relief in the form of a declaration that he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession in the introductory part of the plaint at page 1 and an alternative prayer for similar declaration in the prayer clause in the plaint and also wants to add in para 10 of the plaint that he has become owner of Lot No. 119(b) as far back as in October, 1959. 3. The application has been resisted for the defendants on the grounds that the suit itself is not competent and is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has no locus sandi to institute the suit as well as the present application. On merits, it has been claimed that there is no question of adverse possession as the plaintiff stands dispossessed from the suit property. It is further claimed that the application is based on conjectures ad surmises, hence cannot be allowed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records. 5. To put it in a summary manner, what the plaintiff wants to add to the plaint by way of amendment is a prayer for a decree for declaration in the alternative on the ground that he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The amendment of plaint by claiming additional relief on the same facts as already averred in the paint is only an additional approach to the same facts, therefore, where the requisite element for grant of such relief is averred in the plaint, the amendment must be allowed. The amendment of plaint by claiming additional relief on the same facts as already averred in the paint is only an additional approach to the same facts, therefore, where the requisite element for grant of such relief is averred in the plaint, the amendment must be allowed. It must be more-so where the proposed amendment is merely to amend prayer clause for which the basis can be traced in the averments made in the plaint and no new ideas are introduced. 6. In the instant case, the plaintiff claims that the suit property was purchased at the auction by one Dina Nath on 23.10.1959 and the plot was specified by boundaries. The plaintiff purchased it from said Dina Nath and had constructed new building in place of the old Stables and servant quarters and the other vacant land of the plot. This is his claim based on title. However, at the same time, he claims that his predecessor-in-interest came to possess the suit property by way of purchase on 23.10.1959. Thereafter he entered into possession of the suit property by virtue of sale of the suit land by said Dina Nath to him on January 17, 1962 and thereafter he has been in continuous possession thereof as of right ad as a owner and no one else has any right, title or interest in the same and even if his possession on the aforesaid land is found to be without any title, the same has ripened into ownership as is averred in Para 10 of the plaint. In Para 14 of the plaint, it has further been claimed that the plaintiff otherwise has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession. Thus, the averments made in the plaint disclose a basis for the alternative relief of declaration that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession. The question whether the plea of adverse possession as raised or the prayer for alternative relief of declaration regarding acquisition of title by adverse possession, as sought to be introduced by amendment are true or false, cannot be gone into at the stage of deciding the application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC praying for amendment of the pleadings. The correctness or otherwise of such a plea be gone into only at the trial. 7. The correctness or otherwise of such a plea be gone into only at the trial. 7. The amendment prayed for does not alter the cause of action or the basic nature of the suit but merely seeks to add a prayer for alternative relief, for claiming which the requisite element is not wanting in the plaint as already stated hereinabove. 8. In view of the above, the present application is allowed but subject to costs of Rs. 500/-.