K.Kannan, J. - (1.) The civil revision is against an order rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rules 16 and 14 read with 151 Civil Procedure Code for striking off the pleadings in the statement dated 06.02.2003. The grievance of the petitioners was that the written statement which had been filed by the defendants in answer to the plaint as originally filed was sought to be amended subsequently introducing several paragraphs in the written statement which were inconsistent with the original contentions raised in the written statement. The plaintiff would contend that when the plaintiff made an amendment to his pleadings, the amendment which the defendant could have made or added to the pleadings ought to be consequential to the amendment brought by the plaintiff and the defendant could not have brought forth new defences which had no bearing to the amended pleadings in the plaint.
(2.) The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners would draw my attention to the original plaint which he had filed for which written statement had also been filed and point out to the amendment which he had subsequently made to the plaint and want a comparison of the written statement filed subsequently introducing new paragraphs which had no bearing to the plaintiff's amendment. In particular, the learned counsel would point out that para 2 as originally contained in the plaint was with reference to a purchase of property in her name for which the defence as contained in the written statement (unamended) was as follows:- "2. Para no.2 of the plaint is totally incorrect and is denied. House No.186, Model Town, Karnal was purchased by Shri Pritam Singh with his own money the plaintiff was a pauper at the time of marriage and has not source of income at the time of purchase of the house, the plaintiff married Pritam Singh fully knowing the due to a major operations, he was unable to bear her a child. She simply married him for his wealth at the instance of her brother Surinder Singh with whom she was living at the time of her marriage. The plaintiff has not intentionally given the details of purchase of his house."
(3.) It can be noticed that as regards the plaintiff's assertion that she had purchased the property in Model Town through a sale deed dated 29.04.1966, the contention in defence originally was that the plaintiff was a mere pauper at the time of her marriage with Pritam Singh and that she had no source of income for the purchase. The defence also was that the plaintiff had not intentionally given the details of purchase of the house. Through an amendment in the written statement, apart from rephrasing the opening sentence with reference to the time of purchase as having been made much before 1966 in which he was living before that and has named this house as PRITAM GHAR and that he even renovated it made some construction and solemnized the marriage of his sister before this alleged sale and that further he even opted for joining the Haryana cadre being a resident of Karnal, he added the following sentence: ".......The sale deed if any is a fabricated, false and sham transaction prepared after the death of previous wife of Pritam Singh........." The last portion of the written statement is what the plaintiff is particularly aggrieved about in that it says the sale deed (29.04.1966), if any, is fabricated, false and sham transaction prepared after the death of previous wife of Pritam Singh. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would argue that while the original written statement was that it was a benami purchase, the defendant was trying to plead the sale itself sham through the subsequent amended written statement. I cannot find any serious inconsistency at all for the benami transaction is understood in two ways: either as a property purchased in the name of another (benamidar) for the benefit of the real owner or, that the transaction of sale itself does not vest title. In other words, although it may stand in the name of ostensible owner (benamidar), the title continues to vest in the transferor. In this case, the defendant has tried to explain that the transaction of purchase in the name of plaintiff as a sham and fabricated document. It is another way of explaining that no title passed to the plaintiff.;