MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal having been filed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur dt. 9. 7. 96 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and for mesne profits, has come up before this Court on an application filed by the plaintiff appellant under order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint itself. Reply to the amendment application was also filed by the defendant respondent (Onila E. Charan ).
(2.) THE facts, shorn in details, but relevant are that plaintiff appellant instituted a suit for ejectment and mesne profits against the defendants in respect of suit property consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, store and toilet constructed on suit land, on the assertions that when the survey was conducted by the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur in respect of the land being occupied by the persons on the mission compound situated at Ajmer Road name of the plaintiff was entered in survey record of 1981 as having been occupied by her on the suit land, thereafter United Church of North India had allegedly lodged a complaint for the trespass over the mission compound land. Ultimately, compromise was arrived at on 30. 9. 86 and the occupiers of the mission compound land including the plaintiff were asked to deposit Nazrana of Rs. 5000/- which was deposited by her and thereby she continued in possession over the suit land. It has also been contended that after the death of her brother (S. D. Lal), his wife (Smt. Florense) used to remain sick, so to look after her brother's wife, the defendants used to come at the place of the plaintiff since 1989 and after the death of her brother's wife (Smt. Florense), in July 1989 the defendants forcibly took the possession of the portion of suit land where her brother (S. D. Lal) and his wife (Smt. Florense) had been allowed to reside. Hence, the ejectment of the plaintiff from the portion of suit land described in para 1 of the plaint was sought with a mesne profits @ Rs. 1000/- per month. In reply to the plaint defendant No. 1 claimed herself to reside as daughter with S. D. Lal (brother of plaintiff) and continued during life time of S. D. Lal and after his death, with his wife (Smt. Florense) who is stated to have executed a will on 29. 5. 1989 in her favour and by virtue of it she claimed herself as an owner of the suit premises wherein she has been residing alongwith her husband defendant No. 2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 7 issues were framed. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the learned trial Court on the basis of the findings arrived at under Issues No. 1 to 3 & 6 dismissed the plaintiff's suit under the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. Amendment in the plaint is sought asserting that the suit land initially was owned by the united Church of North India Trust (for short "the Trust") from whom the appellant had purchased a plot under an agreement dt. 2. 5. 1989 but since the Trust did not execute the deed in favour of the appellant, so a suit was ultimately filed for specific performance on 1. 12. 1990 which stood decreed in her favour on 1. 12. 1991. It has further been asserted that in respect of the suit land another suit was also instituted and pending before Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was decreed vide judgment dt. 25. 4. 97 in favour of the present plaintiff and pursuant thereto a lease deed was got registered in favour of the plaintiff by the Sub Registrar Jaipur on 6. 11. 1997, having arisen the cause to amend the plaint in a suit for possession and mesne profits which was decided on 9. 7. 1996 much earlier to the subsequent decree passed on 25. 4. 97 granting relief to get the lease registered in favour of the present plaintiff. By way of amendment the plaintiff wants to add the averments as para 1a to the plaint incorporating the averment for claiming and establishing her ownership on the basis of aforesaid subsequent decree passed in her favour and the registered lease deed dt. 6. 11. 1997 which are asserted to be essential facts having arisen after the impugned decree under appeal.
(3.) IN reply to the aforesaid amendment application serious objections have been raised inter-alia that the lease deed and the decree in suit No. 90/90 in fact was obtained by way of compromise in collusion with and by playing fraud and in that suit the present defendant had also filed an application to implead her as a party but the trial Court in Suit No. 90/90 vide its order dt. 26. 11. 1996 declined thereto against which Revision Petition No. 506/97 (defect) was filed before this Court inasmuchas, after the aforesaid decree in suit No. 90/90 suit No. 525/97 was also filed by the defendants against the present plaintiff, which has been pending alongwith Misc. Application No. 204/97, wherein, status-quo has been ordered to be maintained, while decree was sought to be declared ineffective and void as against the rights of the present defendants. By another application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for taking on record registered lease deed was also filed which was also contested by filing a detailed reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment & decree so also the additional documents sought to be taken on record and filed alongwith application seeking amendment in the plaint. ;