High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Het Ram v. I Adj - WRIT - C No. 10641 of 1985  RD-AH 5805 (2 April 2007)
Judgement Reserved on 16.3.2007
Judgement Delivered on 2.4.2007
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10641 of 1985
Het Ram Versus I Additional District Judge, Mainpuri and others .
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the contesting respondents at the time of arguments.
Original petitioner Het Ram since deceased and survived by legal representatives filed O.S No. 400 of 1978 against Ram Dayal respondent No. 3, Bhumiraj respondent No.4 and Arjun Singh (Ram Dayal is son of Arjun Singh). During pendency of the suit Arjun Singh died. Substitution application was filed before the trial court and in the said application, it was stated that Arjun Singh was survived by one son Ram Dayal who was already defendant No.1 and two daughters Smt Shutsa Devi and Smt Kesar Devi. It was prayed that the two daughters might be impleaded as legal representatives of Arjun Singh defendant No.3 alongwith Ram Dayal who was already party. Application was allowed.
In the suit, it was stated that petitioner was owner in possession of plot No. 1035 area 1.3 acres and plot No. 1034 area 0.02 acres. In respect of plot No. 1304, it was stated that the plaintiff had obtained the said plot from Rani Saheba Mainpuri through written Ijazat Nama (permission deed) executed in the year 1950. The relief claimed was for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute and further restraining them making any construction thereupon. The suit was filed on 14/16.12.1978. It appears that in the written statement it was stated that plot No. 1304 area 0.02 acres was given to defendant No.3 Arjun Singh by Rani Saheba through Ijazat Nama dated 18.7.1950 and defendant No.3 had sold the property to defendant No.2 on 26.6.1976. Thereafter plaintiff petitioner filed application for amendment in the plaint. In the amendment application, it was stated that Ijazat Nama in favour of the petitioner was executed by Rani Saheba on 18.7.1950 (In the original plaint only year 1950 had been mentioned). Through amendment Ijazat Nama in favour of defendant No.3 dated 18.7.1950 was challenged. It was stated that on some blank papers there were signatures of Rani Saheba on which Ijazat Nama had been executed by defendant No.3 with the help of Katib and Mukhtare Aam of Rani Saheba and the said Mukhtare Aam was of unsound mind for a long time. It was also stated that no permission from the State Government was sought before executing sale deed dated 26.6.1976 hence it was void. Through amendment application a prayer was sought to be added to the effect that Ijazat Nama dated 18.7.1950 on the basis of which sale deed dated 26.6.1976 was executed was not binding upon the plaintiff and Ijazat Nama must be cancelled. The relief for cancellation was confined only to Ijazat Nama dated 18.7.1950 and not to sale deed dated 26.6.1976. Trial court / Munsif Mainpuri through order dated 1.9.1982 rejected the amendment application. The trial court held that if such amendment was allowed then the suit would assume new character and new evidence would be required to be given, cause of action would also change and nature of the suit would also change. Against the said order plaintiff petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 100 of 1983. I Additional District Judge, Mainpuri dismissed the revision on 24.9.1985, hence this writ petition.
Revisional court held that amendment application was barred by time and new case was taken through amendment.
In the amendment application no prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 26.6.1976 was made. The only prayer sought to be added was for cancellation of Ijazat Nama dated 18.7.1950. In the amendment application, it was not stated that plaintiff petitioner was not aware of the said Ijazat Nama. Nothing was stated regarding delay of 30 years in seeking cancellation of the Ijazat Nama. In view of this amendment sought was clearly barred by time.
Moreover the two daughters of Arjun Singh who were substituted after his death in the suit have also not been impleaded in this writ petition. Learned counsel has argued that as Arjun Singh executed sale deed in favour of Bhumiraj respondent No.4 hence there was no need to implead the daughters. In fact relief sought to be added through amendment was for cancellation of Ijazat Nama in favour of Arjun Singh hence all his heirs were necessary parties. The amendment sought was also defective for the reasons that no prayer either for cancellation of or for declaration as void the sale deed dated 26.10.1976 was sought to be added.
Accordingly I do not find any error in the impugned orders rejecting amendment application. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.