Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J This revision questions an order passed by the court below allowing an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The applicants are the defendants in Original Suit No.592 of 2008 instituted by the opposite parties.
I have heard Sri Agrawal for the applicants and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filed a Suit initially claiming the relief of injunction for restraining the defendant from transferring the property in dispute and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the share of the plaintiffs over the same.
The plaintiffs claimed that they had inherited the property from Late Sita Ram Agrawal. The pliantiff - Urmila Devi is the wife of Late Sita Ram Agrawal, the second plaintiff Km. Vimlesh is the mentally retarded unmarried daughter of Late Sita Ram Agrawal and Smt. Preeti Agrawal is the married daughter of the said Sita Ram Agrawal. The defendant - Vinod Kumar Agrawal, who is a practising Lawyer, is the son of Late Sita Ram Agrawal and Smt. Sudha Rani is his wife. The dispute is, therefore, within the family itself and relates to a commercial property which is tenanted to some tenants.
The plaintiffs claimed inheritance of the entire property whereas the defendants claim that they have inherited the property through a notarized Will of Late Sita Ram Agrawal. The defendants further claimed that the said Will had been given effect to through a mutation in the municipal records and, therefore, the plaintiffs have absolutely no right 2 title or interest over the same.
The plaintiffs initially filed a Suit for permanent injunction and in the plaint, they have alleged that the defendants had illegally obtained mutation and as soon as the plaintiffs came to know of the same, they instituted the Suit. An amendment application was filed seeking a relief for declaring the alleged Will set up by the defendants to be fake and the amendment prays for a declaration that the Will is a nullity. It is this amendment which was objected to by the defendants but has been allowed by the court below.
I have perused the amendment application as also the conclusion drawn by the court below. The amendment was brought about for a declaration that the Will, as set up by the defendant dated 8.10.2001, be declared to be a nullity. It is on the basis of the Will that the defendants are seeking their rights over the property. The plaint also recites that such a claim as set up is illegal. In effect, the plaint itself is founded on the said allegation and a decree of permanent injunction has been sought.
It is well known that a Suit for permanent injunction also involves a declaration of rights in such matters. It is for this reason that the plaintiffs had sought a declaration that the Will be also declared nullity.
To my mind, the revisional court has committed no error as the said amendment has been brought forth in order to claim an effective appropriate relief and non-suiting the plaintiff on this ground would unnecessarily involve multiplicity of the proceedings. The amendment if refused may result in failure of justice in order to arrive at the correct conclusion in respect of the title to the property. Therefore, the court below was perfectly justified in allowing the revision. I see no reason to interfere with the same. The revision lacks merit and is rejected.
Dt. 19.1.2010 Irshad