PREM SINGH Vs. HARPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Harpal Kaur widow of Bachan Singh son of Kaka Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the joint owner and id possession to the extent of 9/14th share of half share end the defendant-petitioners are the joint owners of 4/5th share of half share in equal shares of the land mentioned in the heading of the plaint and for permanent injunctioa restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in her peaceful actual possession. Kaka Singh i. e. her father-in-law along with other defendant i. e. sons and daughters of Kaka Singh were arrayed as defendants. Kaka Singh defendant filed his written statement on 12-8- 1985 wherein he admitted the fact that Harpal Kaur plaintiff was widow of his son Bachan Singh. Similar written statement was filed by his sons defendants Nos. 2 to 4 oh 1 101986 in which they also admitted the relationship of plaintiff with their brother Bachan Singh.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 Kaka Singh died. An application was filed for bringing on record his legal representatives, some of whom were already on the record. Defendant No. 11 i. e the son of the daughter of Kaka Singh was also added as a new defendant. The trial Court directed the plaintiff-respondent to amend her plaint The amendment was allowed on payment of Rs. 30/-as costs which were paid. Thereafter case was adjourned to 15-9-1986 for filing of amended written statement on 3-9 1986. Several opportunities were given to the defendants to file their written statement and ultimately the same was allowed to be placed on record with costs. Written statement was filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as well as defendant No. 11 on 12-10-1987. Costs were also deposited which were also accepted by the plaintiff-respondent, in the amended written statement defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and defendant No. 11 in contradistinction to their separate written statement and that of their predecessor in-interest Kaka Singh took up toe plea that there was no relationship of plaintiff Harpal Kaur with deceased Bachan Singh.

(3.) PLAINTIFF thereafter filed an application under Section 151 C. P. C in which she prayed that the amended written statement be not permitted to be placed on the record on the plea that no amended written statement could be filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who had already filed their written statement earlier and the newly added defendant No. 11 as legal representatives of Kaka Singh also could not file a fresh written statement as their predecesser-in-interest had already filed the written statement. In the alternative it was pleaded that even if the amended written statement is allowed to be placed on the record, then defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and defendant No. 11 could not be permitted to take inconsistent pleas with the pleas already taken by them in their earlier written statement or that of the written statement filed by their predeessor in interest Kaka Singh.