A.L. Bahri, J.@mdashInderjit Singla (sic) Gupta and Gurbax Singh Bhasin plaintiffs filed a suit for possession a plot of land measuring about 45 sequare yards situated on Court Road, Bhatinda against Municipal Committee, Bhatinda. The suit was dismissed by Sub Judge, IIIrd Class, Bhatinda on November 14, 1984 and an appeal was taken by the plaintiffs to the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. In appeal, an application was riled on behalf of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint which was allowed. Hence this revision petition on behalf of the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, the defendant.
2. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased land measuring 256 sequare yards from Surinderpal Singh and Satpal Singh, sons of Chanan Singh, and Balbir Singh through a registered sale deed dated August 19, 1960. They took possession of the land purchased. Out of the said land, 45 square yards of land was included in the New Bus Stand by the Municipal Committee. Still 45 square yards of land remained in actual possession of the plaintiffs. About six years prior to the filing of the suit, out of 45 square yards of land, 29 square yards of land was encroached by the Municipal Committee over which shops were constructed. On the northern side of these shops, there remained 16 square yards of land which was again encroached by the Municipal Committee Before that the plaintiffs had submitted a plan for construction on the said 16 square yards of land. In this manner, the plaintiffs claimed possession of 45 square yards of lard against the Municipal Committee. In the application for amendment of the plaint, it was stated that it was wrongly mentioned in the suit that 256 square yards of land was purchased by the plaintiffs from Surinderpal Singh, Satpal Singh and Balbir Singh. The true facts were elucidated briefly as under.
3. About 28 years ago, the plaintiffs purchased about 3 Bighas of land comprising Khasra No 3747 situated in Patti Mehna, Bhatinda from Pritam Singh, Hans Raj and Tek Chand through a registered sale deed. Possession was taken by the plaintiffs. There was a strip of shamilat land measuring 256 square yards in between the plot purchased and the approach road. The plaintiffs also took possession of the same. In 1960 the plaintiffs constructed a boundary wall on two sides of the shamilat land. The Municipal Committee issued notice u/s 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act on the plaintiffs Satpal Singh, Sur nderpal Singh and Gur Sewak Singh approached the plaintiffs and threatened them with dire consequences alleging that they had purchased the disputed plot from one Amrik Singh vide sale deed dated April 25, 1960 and had taken possession thereof. The plaintiffs took proceedings u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and the matter was decided in their favour. In spite of the above, in order to avoid apprehension of breach of peace, they purchased the rights from Surinderpal Singh and Satpal Singh vide registered sale deed dated August 19, 1960. The plaintiffs were already co-sharers of the land in Patti Mehna and they had a share in the shmilat land. They remained in possession of the disputed land as owners as before.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the plaintiffs want to take contradictory plea and thus amendment of the plaint should not have been allowed. Earlier the plaintiffs came to the Court or the question of title whereas now they want the relief on the basis of their previous possession. There is no merit in this contention. It is only by way of explanation that the previous history is being narrated by the plaintiffs and further it has been explained under what circumstances they purchased the plot in dispute from Surinderpal Singh and Satpal Singh. In fact, Surinderpal Singh and Satpal Singh did not possess any title. However it was under their threat that their alleged rights in the plot in dispute were also purchased. In fact, the case of the plaintiffs remained that they were owners of a chunk of land by purchase and they also took into possession a strip of land in between the land purchased and the approach road which is now disputed. All along they claimed to be in possession of the said land before they were deprived of the same by the Municipal Committee. In nutshell, their suit remains for possession of 45 square yards of plot in dispute.
5. The more fact that in appeal, application for amendment of the plaint was filed is no ground to deny the relief.
6. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed and the order of the lower appellate Court allowing amendment of the plaint is affirmed.
