HARBHAJAN KAUR Vs. JASWANT SINGH
LAWS(P&H)-2001-2-84
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 23,2001

HARBHAJAN KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
JASWANT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.C.GUPTA, J. - (1.) 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. 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. 22'x50' 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. 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.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 16.5.2000 dismissed the application for amendment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.