SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) Aggrieved of order dated 29.04.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 05 of 2009, whereby application for amendment in the written statement has been declined the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) Title Suit No. 05 of 2009 was instituted by Puran Chandra Deogam (Ho) and others for a declaration of their right, title and interest over schedule "A" properties and for a decree of recovery of Khas possession of schedule "A" properties after demolishing the existing structures at the cost of defendants. In the suit the petitioner is defendant no. 1.
(3.) The plaintiffs have pleaded that the land comprised under Plot No. 160 pertaining to Khata No. 10 of Mouza Matkamhatu stood in the name of Turam Ho, Gangaram Ho and Pradhan Ho in the survey khatiyan of 1960-64. The plaintiffs are legal representatives of the recorded Raiyats. They are members of Schedule Tribe belonging to Deogam Killi and they claimed that they had been paying land revenue for 0.27 acres under Plot No. 160. They have claimed exclusive possession before 13.07.2007, when the defendant No. 1 allegedly entered possession over a portion of the said land, described as schedule "A" properties. The defendants contested the suit by filing separate written statements. Defendant no. 1 took a stand that 0.27 acres land was originally sold by Pradhan Ho and Ganga Ram Ho to Krishna Chandra Das in the year, 1955 and since then he came in exclusive possession of the said land and constructed dwelling house thereon. In the year 1973, a case for restoration of possession was filed by Ganga Ram Ho and Pradhan Ho in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa which was numbered S.A.R. No. 27 of 1973-74, against husband of defendant No. 2 namely, Krishna Chandra Das. In the said case delivery of possession was ordered in favour of the applicants, against which Krishna Chandra Das preferred Title Appeal No. 61 of which was disposed of vide order dated 01.10.1975 and S.A.R case was remanded for fresh consideration by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Finally, by an order dated 20.12.1983 S.A.R No. 27 of 1973-74 was disposed of directing payment of compensation to the applicants and transfer of the land in favour of husband of the defendant no. 2 was regularised. The defendant no. 1 has pleaded that Krishna Chandra Das paid Rs. 1000/in presence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to Gangaram Ho and Pradhan Ho and on 23.12.1983 the land measuring about 0.27 decimals (sic. acres) was confirmed in favour of Krishna Chandra Das. On 13.07.2007, 0.031/4 decimal land was sold by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. A second case for restoration of possession vide S.A.R. Case No. 10 of 2007-08 for recovery of schedule "A" properties and another case bearing S.A.R. Case No. 09 of 2007-08 for restoration of 0.133/4 decimals land were filed against one Usha Devi wife of Daya Ram Agarwal. Both these cases were dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2008, against which S.A.R. Appeal No. 29 of and S.A.R. Appeal No. 30 of 2008-09 were preferred, which also have been dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2012, and revision preferred by the plaintiffs against that order has been allowed by an order dated 15.06.2016. In the meantime, Title Suit No. 05 of 2009 was instituted in which after the plaintiff's witness namely, Naresh Deogam-P.W 2 was examined, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C was filed for incorporating a new paragraph 27A in the written statement, which reads as under: "(27A) That plaintiffs have also themselves acknowledged and honoured the order passed in the said SAR proceeding and treated the possession of late Krishan Chandra Das as that of a valid owner. In fact an "Ekrarnama" was executed by plaintiff No. 3 Brajmohan Deogam, as recently as on 08.02.2000, whereby he had admitted and acknowledged the fact that-late Krishan Chandra Das, has been in possession of the suit property for last 50 years and that his father had received compensation in compliance of order passed in SAR proceeding.";