M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) The defendants have approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, "the Code") and have challenged the interlocutory order dated 21.03.2002 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissing their application preferred under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code, seeking amendment of the plaint at the stage when their appeal under Section 96 of the Code was pending before the Lower Appellate Court.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession seeking a declaration that they were owners to the extent of ⅘th share and also sought partition in equal share to the extent of ⅕th share. A further declaration was sought that defendant-respondent No. 5 Smt. Baksho widow of Chaman Lal is a co-owner to the extent of ⅕th share in respect of premises marked as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint. The plaintiffs also challenged the sale-deeds dated 17.04.1995 executed by defendant-respondent No. 5 Smt. Baksho in favour of the defendant-petitioners. It is appropriate to mention that the plaintiff-respondents also asserted that they were the offsprings of marriage of Chaman Lal with Smt. Nirmala and after the death of Nirmala, Chaman Lal married Smt. Baksho defendant-respondent No. 5. Smt. Baksho (defendant-respondent No. 5) alongwith defendant-respondent No. 6 Mukhtiar Singh set up the plea that plaintiff-respondents were not related to Chaman Lal in any manner, who had died on 11.09.1997.
(3.) The defendant-petitioners filed a written statement by taking the stand that they are bona fide purchaser and have purchased ⅔rd of the property in dispute from Smt. Baksho defendant-respondent No. 5 vide registered sale-deed dated 17.04.1995 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. It was further claimed that defendant-petitioner No. 2 has purchased ⅓rd share of the property in dispute from Smt. Baksho vide registered sale-deed dated 17.04.1995 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 8000/-. According to the pleadings in the written statement, defendant-petitioners have claimed to be in possession to the extent of their share. They have further claimed that Smt. Baksho defendant-respondent No.5 has been the exclusive owner in possession of the property in dispute and, therefore, both the defendants- petitioners are in possession, who are the bona fide purchaser from her.;