- (1.) THE petitioner instituted a suit for declaration in 2007 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib that he is co -owner in the suit property which is ancestral in nature. He claims to be a co -parcenor in joint Hindu family property. He traces his rights by succession from Chanan Ram son of Norata Ram (deceased) who was his grandfather. The petitioner and the 17 defendants, respondents herein, are related to each other being members of a family. A deed of transfer executed on 24th December, 2002 between Chanan Ram and defendant No 1 bearing Vasika No.3575 is challenged by the plaintiff as illegal and without consideration. By this transfer deed, the petitioner has been excluded from the suit property. The petitioner is the son of Amarjit Singh one of the sons of late Chanan Ram.
(2.) THE issue in the suit arising out of the pleadings is whether the property is ancestral in nature or is self -acquired property of the ancestor who parted away his rights to one of his sons i.e. defendant No 1. The transfer deed on which the defendants rely in defense of the suit backed by the principle that it was self acquired property of late Chanan Ram and therefore could be disposed of by him according to his wishes. The suit property comprises of 1K -18M of land situate in village Nalini, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
(3.) THE present controversy raised in this petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') read with Section 151 CPC praying for permission to amend the plaint. A modified prayer is sought to be introduced in the suit. The written statement was filed by the defendants over six years ago on 6th October, 2007. The application for amendment of the plaint and reply thereto are both of even date, i.e. 20th February, 2014. Without doubt, in the original suit a specific challenge was laid to the transfer deed. In support thereof, the original pleadings are contained in para. 4 of the plaint it was averred as follows : - "4. That the suit property being ancestral coparcenary and joint Hindu family property, Chanan Ram never resided with the defendant No.1 as she is married and is residing at Village Badouchhi Kalan. Deceased Chanan Ram was no right to transfer the suit property in the name of the defendant no.1. The deceased Chanan Ram executed the transfer deed without any right and competency in favour of the defendant No.1 just to deprive the plaintiffs from their legal rights in the suit property. Said transfer deed of ownership and mutation in the name of the defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void sham document and without benefit of estate and is not binding upon the legal rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property and is liable to be set aside.";