Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

effect that plaintiffs' have file a suit in representative capacity for declaration that the suit property be declared as a public property and the sale deed dated 1/7/2000 executed in favour of defendant No. 1 is ineffective and does not bestow any right upon the defendant No. 1. Besides relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant No. 1 from raising any construction over the disputed property has also been prayed. Suit is filed on the premise that suit land is a Maufi land of temple Rishabh Dev Devsthan and therefore, is a public property. The alleged sale deed dated 1/7/2000 is a forged and fabricated sale deed. No right, title or interest can be said to have accrued upon defendant No. 1 on the basis of aforesaid sale deed. During pendency of the suit, plaintiffs filed applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to bring on record certain facts as regards the nature of land which came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs while they applied for details of suit land under Right to Information Act and documents so procured therefrom have also been filed. Amendment in the plaint was sought to reinforce the contention that suit land is a public property and cannot be subject matter of sale. It is submitted that aforesaid amendment is in the line with and in aid of the averments made in the plaint. Neither the nature of suit nor relief clause are changed. Further the amendment sought to be incorporated by the amendment since came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs later on, as such in the interest of justice amendments deserves to be allowed.