Akil Kureshi, J. - (1.)This revision petition is heard finally. The petitioner original defendant No.1 in the Title Suit (Partition) No.48/2018 has challenged an order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, West Tripura. Brief facts are as under:
(2.)The parties belong to the same family. The respondents No.1 to 3 herein have filed above mentioned civil suit seeking partition of the family properties. In such suit the written statement was filed by the defendants contending that the father of the defendants No.1 and 2 during his life time had executed registered gift deeds granting certain parcels of the lands to the defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an application for amendment of the plaint, in which he sought permission to add one Sri Jatan Choudhury as a defendant No.3. The plaintiffs prayed for addition of certain averments in the plaint as also addition of the prayers for production of the gift deeds both dated 22nd November, 1991 and for a declaration that the same were executed fraudulently and deceitfully and were, therefore, void. This application of the plaintiffs was opposed by the original defendants No.1 and 2 inter alia on the grounds that the amendments amounted to changing the very nature of the suit and that in any case the prayer for declaration that the gift deeds are void was hit by limitation. The learned trial Judge passed the impugned order allowing the application of the plaintiffs permitting the amendment to the plaint. He was of the opinion that Sri Jatan Choudhury was a necessary party and, therefore, he should be allowed to be joined as defendant No. 3. He was also of the opinion that amendment to the plaint is necessary to determine the real question whether the properties mentioned in Schedule -A and B were joint family properties capable of partition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner, original defendant No.1 vehemently contended that trial Court committed serious error in allowing the amendment application of the plaintiffs. He pointed that both the gift deeds were registered deeds. Necessary mutation entries in the revenue records were made pursuant to the gift deeds. The defendants No. 1 and 2 had also developed the property is in question. Allowing the amendment would change the nature of the suit and in any case the prayers were hit by limitation. Counsel for the respondent No.4, the original defendant No.2 also adopted the same line of arguments.
;