1. The present petition has been filed “for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the learned A.D.J.-III, Jamui in Title Appeal No.
36/2011 whereby and whereunder the amendment petition dated 15.05.2019 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. on behalf of the appellants-petitioners
is rejected.â€
2. It is submitted that plaintiff no. 2/appellant no.2/petitioner had filed a suit for partition of the land appertaining to Khata No. 34, Khesra No. 573,
area 18 decimals, situated in Village-Nazari, P.S. & Anchal Laxmipur, in the district of Jamui and the plaintiffs had claimed 1/3rd share in the suit
property comprising 18 decimals of land. The defendants/respondents had filed their written statement. It is submitted that without proper scrutiny of
facts and evidence, the suit was dismissed by judgment and order dated 30.07.2011 holding that the plaintiffs had no share in the suit land, rather it
was the purchased land of defendant no.1 from her father. The plaintiff/appellant/petitioner accordingly filed Title Appeal No. 36 of 2011, in course of
which an amendment petition was filed with a prayer for framing additional issues with respect to fraudulent registration of the sale deed dated
24.10.1972 which would not be binding on the plaintiffs, but the same has been rejected as such amendment would change the nature of the suit for
partition to one for cancellation of sale deed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the materials on record.
4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 shows that the learned appellate court has considered the matter in detail. It has been noted that
the deed had been registered on 24.10.1972 and the same came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 13.06.1980, if not earlier. It has been further
noted that the plaintiffs/appellants had admitted the conveyance of title through the aforesaid sale deed and only the area conveyed remained under
dispute. As such, allowing the amendment petition would amount to a challenge to the validity of the sale itself, which was not permissible. It has
therefore been held that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit from that of a partition suit to one for cancellation of sale deed.
5. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed.
