M.Y.Eqbal, J. - (1.)The question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision is as to whether plaintiff can be allowed at the appellate stage to amend the relief portion of the plaint.
(2.)The plaintiff petitioner filed Title Suit No. 58/97 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Hazaribagh for declaration of title for possession of the suit land and in the alternative for recovery of possession and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from creating any distrubances or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.
(3.)The brief facts of the case is that defendant No. 2 acquired the suit property by inheritance and became absolute owner of the same. In 1992 it is alleged that defendant No. 1 got the sale deed registered in his favour without paying any consideration amount to defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 inspite of the aforesaid sale made by registered deed dated 17-3-1992 did not came in possession. The defendant No. 2 thereafter executed a registered deed of cancellation on 11-2-1993 cancelling the aforesaid registered deed dated 17-3-1992. Thereafter defendant No. 2 sold the said land in favour of the plainitff by virtue of registered of sale dated 22-9-1993 on payment of full consideration amount. The plaintiff's further case is that after the said purchase he got his name mutated in the revenue records and have been paying rent to the State of Bihar. In 1997 a proceeding in Section 144, Cr. PC with respect, to said land was initiated at the instance of defendant No. 1 and the same was made absolute against him but he still continued creating distrubances. Hence the suit. It appears from the judgment passed by the trial Court that summons were duly served upon both the defendants who did not contest the suit by filing written statement. The suit was therefore virtually proceeded exparte against the defendants. The trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on technical ground that the plaintiff did not seek a relief for setting aside the sale deed excuted by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. The trial Court held that in absence of a relief for setting aside the first sale deed the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in respect of the suit land.