Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 259 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Kaur v. Jaswant Singh

2001-02-23

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - Heard. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Shri Jaswant Singh for restraining him and his servants etc. from interfering in her peaceful possession of plot measuring 100 sq. yds. (20 x 50) forming part of House No. 109 situated in Street No. 4, Partap Nagar, Patiala, as detailed in the heading of the plaint on the allegations that she had been in peaceful possession of it for the last 13/14 years and the Respondent had no right, title or concern with it and he wanted to take its forcible possession to which he is not legally entitled. 2. The respondent filed the written statement in which he denied the allegations of the revisionist (plaintiff) and stated that she has no concern with the plot in dispute and on the other hand he has purchased land measuring 237.5 sq. yds. (including the plot in dispute) vide sale deed dated 18.9.1968 from Gurnam Singh and the mutation was also sanctioned in his favour and since then he was in peaceful and continuous possession of the plot in dispute. He even constructed a boundary wall on two sides and installed a gate on the main road. He also stated that the revisionist wanted to take its forcible possession by demolishing a part of the wall and his son had lodged a report to this effect with Police Station Sadar, Patiala on 22.6.1997. 3. When the said suit of the plaintiff was fixed for arguments, she moved an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., as follows :- i) To add in the head note of the suit, "Suit for declaration to the effect that the defendants have got no right, title or concern in any manner with the plot measuring 100 sq. yards i.e. 22x50 part of House No. 109 situated in St. yards i.e. 22x50 part of House No. 109 situated in St. No. 4, Partap Nagar, Patiala, shown in the site plan Annexure A in Red colour and the alleged sale deed No. 2215 dated 28.9.1968 in favour of defendant, if any regarding the plot in question is quite illegal, null and void, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside." ii) To add in para No. 4-A that the defendants have got no right, title or concern in any manner with the said plot fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint situated at St. No. 4, Partap Nagar, Patiala, shown in Red Colour in site plan Annexure A and the defendant is alleging the sale deed No. 2215 dated 28.9.1968 in his favour qua the plot in question, but infact the said sale-deed is illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction, paper transaction and the same has no force in the eyes of law, as the defendant never came in possession over the plot in question since 28.9.1968 at any time. iii) To add para No. 4-B in the plaint "that the plaintiff is in peaceful continues uninterrupted without payment anything regarding plot in question to the defendant or to any other person any rent, lease amount for the last more than 16/17 years and the same has ripped by way of adverse possession of the plaintiff has become the owner of the same. iv) To add para No. 6-A in the plaint "that the defendant refused to recognise the right, title and ownership of the plaintiff over the plot in question fully mentioned above and he alleged the sale deed in his favour, a week ago and the suit for declaration." v) To add in para No. 10 in the plaint "The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction for declaration is Rs. 195/- hence a court fee stamps of Rs. 19.50/- are paid on the plaint. vi) To add in prayer clause in the plaint "and decree for declaration to the effect that the defendant have go no right, title or concern in any manner with the plot in question fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint situated in St. 19.50/- are paid on the plaint. vi) To add in prayer clause in the plaint "and decree for declaration to the effect that the defendant have go no right, title or concern in any manner with the plot in question fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint situated in St. No. 4, Partap Nagar, Patiala, and the alleged, sale- deed No. 2215 dated 28.9.1968 in favour of defendant, if any regarding the plot in question is quite illegal, null and void, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside". The respondent filed a reply opposing the aforesaid amendment. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 16.5.2000 dismissed the application for amendment. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition. 6. Counsel for the revisionist Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate and counsel for the respondent Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate, were heard at length and the record was gone into. Para No. 2 of the plaint reads as under :- "That the plaintiff is in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession over the plot in question for the last more than 13/14 years. There is a boundary wall around the plot and there is an entry between the house of Sawaran Singh and the plot of the plaintiff. There are Toot trees, killas, mangoes, house-hold goods are lying in the plot in question. There is a water tap in the plot in question from the house of her husband". Thus, the case of the revisionist is that she is in peaceful and hostile possession of the plot in question over the last 13/14 years. This means that she has claimed adverse possession. It is an admitted proposition of law that adverse possession can only be claimed if the property belongs to other person. The present suit has been filed against Shri Jaswant Singh respondent. That means that the revisionist has claimed adverse possession over the plot in dispute belonging to Shri Jaswant Singh. It is not the case of the revisionist in the plaint that she is owner of the same. On the other hand, her case is that she has been in peaceful and hostile possession of the plot in question for the last 13/14 years and has become owner of the same. It is not the case of the revisionist in the plaint that she is owner of the same. On the other hand, her case is that she has been in peaceful and hostile possession of the plot in question for the last 13/14 years and has become owner of the same. However, the case of the respondent is that he has purchased the property including some other area from Gurnam Singh vide sale deed dated 18.9.1968 and since then he was in its peaceful possession and even had constructed a boundary wall on two sides and had further installed a gate on the road side which is fitted with iron bars. 7. Now by the proposed amendment the revisionist wants to take a somersault by stating that the alleged sale deed No. 2215 dated 28.9.1968 executed in favour of the respondent regarding the plot in question was illegal, null and void. It is not her case that she had got title of the suit land by way of purchase from some other person or she had inherited it from her collaterals. She cannot challenge the title of the respondent because she can claim adverse possession only by conceding that the respondent is the owner of the plot in question. The respondent had filed a written statement on 18.9.1997 i.e. more than 3-1/2 years ago when he had taken the plea that he is the owner of the plot in dispute through sale deed. No such amendment was sought at that stage. It appears that this amendment application has only been made to delay the proceedings when the case was fixed for arguments. It is true that the Court can allow the amendment at any stage, for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, if the present amendment is allowed, it will only add confusion to the pleadings. In fact the revisionist wanted to set up a new case by the proposed amendment. Otherwise also the amendment would be time barred because if she now files a suit for declaration to challenge the alleged sale deed 28.9.1968 then certainly it would be time barred beyond the period of three years. Keeping in view these facts, I do not find any ground to allow the proposed amendment. 8. Otherwise also the amendment would be time barred because if she now files a suit for declaration to challenge the alleged sale deed 28.9.1968 then certainly it would be time barred beyond the period of three years. Keeping in view these facts, I do not find any ground to allow the proposed amendment. 8. However, it is stated that the respondent had filed the written statement taking counter claim and if in that counter claim the revisionist files reply, then certainly she can take the plea challenging the alleged sale deed if permitted under law. With the above observations the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petiton dismissed.