- (1.) Having remained pending at the motion stage since the year 2007, for one reason or the other, this petition is seeking its culmination.
(2.) This petition has arisen out of the order dated 05.06.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioners') under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint as well as reply/written statement to the counter claim filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) Petitioners-Chuhar Singh, Mohinder Singh, Sucha Singh and Mohinder Kaur are/were the brothers and sisters respectively and Surjit Kaur, widow of Sadhu Singh, was their mother. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration on 24.04.2000 claiming themselves to be owners in possession, in equal shares, of the land, as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. They have claimed that the suit property was purchased in the name of their mother Surjit Kaur-defendant No.1 with the joint family funds. However, the said property was transferred in the name of Parveen Kaur and Parvinder Singh, daughter and son of Mohinder Kaur respectively. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the entire land was not recorded in the name of Surjit Kaur, but some part i.e. land measuring 26 Kanals 9 Marlas, was the ownership of Sadhu Singh, about which, they came to know in the month of November, 2004 when they obtained certified copies of the sale deeds dated 07.08.1961 and 29.08.1961 executed by Darshan Singh, Bhajan Kaur and Gurdev Kaur respectively. Thus, in any case, if they are not proved to be the owners of the suit land having purchased in the name of Surjit Kaur, even then they are owners of the suit land having inherited the same from Sadhu Singh and Surjit Kaur, had no right to sell the same. Consequently, they want to add following para No. 5 (d) in the plaint to the following effect:- "5 (d) That even if plaintiff is not able to prove that the land in dispute was not benami in the name of defendant No.1, even otherwise, the said defendant No.1 was not competent to execute the alleged sale deeds as well as alleged gift deeds with regard to the land in dispute. It is submitted in this context that defendant No.1 was not the owner of the part of the suit land i.e. 26 Kanals 9 Marlas bearing Rect. No. 53/2/3 (4-16), 9/1 (4-16), 12/2 (2-11), 12/3 (1-18), 18/2 (0-6), 19 (6-18), 22 (3-14), 23/1 (1-0), situated in village Jandiala, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. In fact, the said land in dispute was owned by (1) Darshan Singh, 2. Balwant Singh, 3. Bhajan Singh, all sons of Santa Singh son of Kartar Singh, as well as.";