Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 977 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. Shanti Devi

2000-08-24

M.L.SINGHAL

body2000
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. (Oral) - Property in suit was owned by Jag Ram. Jag Ram died leaving behind Amar Singh, Attar Singh sons and daughter Gindori, Heirs of one Chattar Singh (alleged son of Jag Ram) namely Smt. Shanti Devi, Parbhakar and Sudhakar filed suit for declaration that they are owners of 1/3rd share of the property left by Jag Ram and the rest of 2/3rd share is owned by Amar Singh and Attar Singh, defendant No. 1 to 6 who are the sons, grand son, grand daughter, widow of Amar Singh and his daughter contested this suit. It was denied that Jag Ram was ever the owner of this property of this property was inherited by his three sons in equal share. In fact Amar Singh, Attar Singh purchased the said plot and constructed house, Chattar Singh had no concern with the property in suit. 2. Defendants moved application for amendment of the written statement. By way of amendment, they wanted to plead the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. Deceased Jag Ram was married to one Sarti Devi. He got two sons namely Amar Singh and Attar Singh and one daughter from that wedlock and Sarti Devi expired in 1937. After the death of Sarti Devi, Jag Ram brought one woman namely Ganga Devi alongwith her son Chattar Singh some where in 1941-42 and started keeping Ganga Devi as his concubine. Chattar Singh was not the son of Jag Ram but was a pichhlag. It was also sought to be pleaded that Chattar Singh was neither the son of Jag Ram nor was he ever treated as son by Jag Ram and as such question of inheriting the property of Jag Ram by Chattar Singh did not arise. It is stated in the applications for amendment that this factual position had been brought by them to the notice of their counsel Sh. J.K. Maheshwari, Advocate while he was preparing written statements and he was instructed to deny the allegation of Chattar Singh being son of Jag Ram. When they engaged Sh. Sunder Lal Garg, Advocate in supersession of Sh. J.K. Maheshwari, Advocate it was brought to their notice by Sh. J.K. Maheshwari, Advocate while he was preparing written statements and he was instructed to deny the allegation of Chattar Singh being son of Jag Ram. When they engaged Sh. Sunder Lal Garg, Advocate in supersession of Sh. J.K. Maheshwari, Advocate it was brought to their notice by Sh. Sunder Lal Garg, Advocate, that the fact that Chattar Singh was not the son of Jag Ram and was a pichhlag brought by Smt. Ganga Devi when she came to the fold of Jag Ram as his concubine after the death of Smt. Sarti Devi is conspicuously missing in the written statement. 3. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs. 4. Vide order dated 5.6.1999, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon declined this prayer of the defendants for amendment of the written statement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. In my opinion, this amendment should have been allowed. In the written statement originally filed by defendants No. 1 to 6 (petitioners-herein) there is no admission by the defendants that Chattar Singh was the son of Jag Ram. If the proposed amendment is allowed, there will be no inconsistency in the stand of the defendants which they have taken earlier and the stand which they are taking now. In para No. 1 of the plaint, pedigree-table has been set out in which Chattar Singh, Amar Singh and Attar Singh are shown to be the sons of Jag Ram. Om Parkash etc. - defendants have denied the correctness of this pedigree table and have averred that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 15 to 20 did not have any share in the said plot/house and Chattar Singh never inherited the plot/house of Jag Ram. Pedigree table given in the plaint is wrong and incorrect. Though proposed amendment, the defendants No. 1 to 6 want to incorporate preliminary objection No. 7 which is re-produced hereunder :- "That the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. The deceased Jag Ram was married to Smt. Sarti Devi and from that wed-lock two sons namely Amar Singh and Attar Singh and one daughter namely Smt. Gindori were born and thereafter Smt. Sarti Devi had expired in the year, 1937. The deceased Jag Ram was married to Smt. Sarti Devi and from that wed-lock two sons namely Amar Singh and Attar Singh and one daughter namely Smt. Gindori were born and thereafter Smt. Sarti Devi had expired in the year, 1937. After her death, the said Jag Ram brought one women namely Ganga Devi alongwith her son Chattar Singh some time in the year, 1941-42 and started keeping her as concubine and her son Chattar Singh as Gaillad (Pichhlag). The said Chattar Singh was neither the son of Jag Ram nor was ever treated as son by deceased Jag Ram and thus the question of inheriting by him any right and by the present plaintiffs after the death of said Chatter Singh, in the property left by Jag Ram does not arise at all and hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed." 7. On merits defendants No. 1 and 6 have stated that Chattar Singh is not the son of Jag Ram. Through proposed amendment facts are sought to be further elucidated and amplified. So, the revision is allowed and the proposed amendment is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Revision allowed.