Jharkhand High Court
Draupadi Devi And Ors vs Smt Ahiliya Devi And Ors on 22 April, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 1483 of 2014
1. Draupadi Devi, W/o Late Bindheshwar Pandey
2. Girja Shankar Pandey
3. Nawal Kishor Pandey @ Nawal Kishor Vidyarthy
Sl. No. 2 and 3 both sons of Late Bindheshwar Pandey,
No. 13, all residents of VillageSisai, PO Khadha,
PS Tandwa, Dist. Chatra
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Ahiliya Devi, W/o Sri Sahdeo Pandey
2. Ravikant Pandey
3. Manikant Pandey
Sl. No. 2 and 3 both sons of Sri Sahdeo Pandey, all
residents of VillageRaham, PO Raham, PS Tandwa, Dist.
Chatra
4. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner,
Chatra, PO & PS & Dist. Chatra
5. Land Reform Deputy Collector, Chatra, PO & PS & Dist.
Chatra
6. Anchal Adhikari, Tandwa, PO & PS Tandwa, Dist. Chatra
7. Smt. Rita Devi, W/O Sudama Pandey
8. Ajit Kumar Pandey, S/O Sudama Pandey
9. Smt. Mundari Devi, W/O Bishwanath Gope
10. Mahavir Pandey, S/o Late Maneshwar Paney
No. 710, all residents of VillageRaham, PO Raham,
PS Tandwa, Dist. Chatra
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A. K. Singh, JC to SC (Mines)
For the Respondents : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate
09/22.04.2016Aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2014 in Title Suit No. 05 of 1996 whereby, application dated 05.09.2013 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint has been allowed, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The petitioners are defendant nos. 1 to 3 in Title Suit No. 05 of 1996. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the 2 Revenue Officers have no right or authority to cancel or reverse order of mutation and demand opened in usual course and that orders passed by Circle Officer, Tandwa and Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra are illegal, void and not maintainable in law. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that Baldev Pandey and Bhagirath Pandey received 1/3rd and 2/3rd shares respectively in the land and properties of Govind Ram Pandey. In the year, 1985 Baldeo Pandey executed a registered deed dated 11.04.1985 for sale of 5 acres and 45½ decimal land in khata no. 42, 7 2/3 decimal in khata no. 266 and 58 decimal land in khata no. 328, total area about 6 acres 11 decimals for a sum of Rs. 7,000/ in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs came in possession over the said land which is ScheduleA land. On the application of the plaintiffs, Circle Officer, Tandwa allowed mutation in their name vide order dated 22.11.1990 in Mutation Case No. 520 of 199091. It was further pleaded that Draupadi Devidefendant no. 1 had also filed an application for mutation in her name asserting that she and her husband were living in the house of Baldev Pandey as ghar jamai and they were serving Baldev Pandey in his old age. It was claimed that Baldev Pandey executed a Deed of Gift in her favour however, the application for mutation was dismissed against which defendant no. 1 filed appeal in the court of Land Reform Deputy Collector, Chatra where she claimed right over the land by inheritance. The appeal was allowed and the matter was 3 remanded before the Circle Officer. On remand, the Circle Officer instituted Case No. 236 of 198586 in which ignoring the earlier order for mutation in the name of plaintiffs, ordered mutation in the name of defendant no. 1 for half share. During the pendency of the title suit, as noticed above the application dated 05.09.2013 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed which has been allowed vide order dated 07.02.2014.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
4. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by permitting amendment in the schedule of the properties annexed to the plaint, the trial court has infact amended the sale deed through which the plaintiffs have claimed right, title and interest over the ScheduleA properties. It is further submitted that after the plaintiffs started examining their witnesses, the belated amendment application, could not have been allowed.
5. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amendment in the schedule of the property is by way of elaboration only and neither the extent nor the descriptions of the suit schedule property have been changed. It is contended that for proper identification of the suit schedule properties the amendment was sought which has rightly been allowed by the trial court.
4
6. A bare perusal of the ScheduleA discloses the description of the properties situated in villageRaham, PSTandwa in DistrictChatra. ScheduleA mentions khata number, plot number and area of the properties, admeasuring about 6.11 acres over which the plaintiffs have laid a claim by virtue of saledeeds. Copies of saledeeds have also been brought on record and I find that the saledeeds also disclose similar particulars of the land purchased by the plaintiffs.
7. "Niyamat Ali Molla vs. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others" reported in (2007) 13 SCC 421, was a case in which the schedule to the plaint did not mention khatian number. The defendants did not filed written statement however, he examined himself as a witness. Suit was decreed and thereafter, an application for amendment of the plaint and the decree containing the Schedule describing the property was filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :
25. "It is not a case where the defendants could be said to have been misled. It is now well settled that the pleadings of the parties are to be read in their entirety.
They are to be construed liberally and not in a pedantic manner. It is also not a case where by reason of an amendment, one property is being substituted by the other. If the court has the requisite power to make an amendment of the decree, the same would not mean that it had gone beyond the decree or passing any decree. The statements contained in the body of the plaint have sufficiently described the suit lands. Only 5 because some blanks in the schedule of the property have been left, the same, by itself, may not be a ground to deprive the respondents from the fruit of the decree. If the appellant herein did not file any written statement, he did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he examined himself as a witness in the case. He, therefore, was aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that an Advocate Commissioner has also been appointed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that only because the JL numbers in the schedule were missing, the same by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the impugned order."
8. In the present case, the defendants did not raise an objection as to identification of the suit schedule properties in their written statement. Only after amendment application dated 05.09.2013 was filed, they took a plea that if the proposed amendment is allowed it would amount to amending the sale deeds. In support of application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC the plaintiffs have taken a plea that due to inadvertence of the typist complete boundaries of the suit Schedule properties were not mentioned. The trial court found that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the defendants were not sustainable and the trial court has rightly rejected the same. Once it is found that the extent and the identification of the suit schedule properties have been specifically mentioned in the schedule to the 6 plaint, incorporation of boundaries thereof, would not cause prejudice to the defendants. Infact, the defendants themselves have also laid claim over the suit property and they have rightly not disputed the description of the suit schedule properties in the written statement. The learned counsel for the parties inform that the defendants have also examined as many as 4 witnesses.
10. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.
11. Interim order dated 18.08.2015 stands vacated.
12. A copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court through FAX, forthwith.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/A.F.R.