Civil Revision No. 2565 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2565 of 2009 Date of decision : 14.1.2010 Tota Ram alias Chet Ram ....Petitioner Versus Ram Bhagat Goyal ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Binderjit Singh , Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner which (suit) came to be decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 8.4.2004. In appeal, petitioner-defendant(appellant therein) filed a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement to obtain the leave of the Court to raise the following plea:- “That since Jeoni was also living in the house of Kartar Singh as later's tenant for the last several years prior to the death of Kartar Singh, therefore, she was also permitted by the defendant to use the site in dispute, which is part of the house of the defendant, for passing Civil Revision No. 2565 of 2009 -2- **** from and to Jheoranwali Street on the request of Kartar Singh as the defendant was closely related to Kartar Singh. Therefore, Jeoni was also used the site in dispute as a licensee during the life time of Kartar Singh. After the death of Kartar Singh, Jeoni continued to use the site in dispute as a licensee with the permission of the defendant. Therefore, she had no right to provide any right in the site in dispute to the plaintiff Ram Bhagat for its use through the alleged registered sale deed dated 23.12.1996. Even the permission given by the defendant to Jeoni to use the site in dispute came to an end automatically with the sale of house of Kartar Singh by Jeoni. Therefore, the alleged sale deed in question executed by Jeoni in favour of the plaintiff does not confer any right upon the plaintiff to use the site in dispute. It is not out of place to mention here that Jeoni was not entitled even to sell house of Kartar Singh as she was the widow of later and was not legally married to Kartar Singh, Jeoni, in fact, was the tenant in the house of Kartar Singh and was the wife of one Raja Ram. Kartar Singh was legally married to one Lajwanti who died much after the death of Kartar Singh. The details in this regard are given in other paras of the written statement. The defendant has also filed a separate claiming the succession of Kartar Singh and his widow Civil Revision No. 2565 of 2009 -3- **** Lajwanti in respect of the house wrongly sold by Jeoni to the plaintiff and has chalelnged the legality and validity of the same.” The plea did not find favour with the Learned Ist Appellate Court which negatived petitioner's plea that the proposed amendment was only clarificatory in character. I find myself in complete agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Ist Appellate Court, for the reasons noticed hereunder:- In the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent had claimed a right of passage through the court-yard at the house of defendant- petitioner under sale deed dated 23.12.1996 which had been executed in his favour by Jeoni wife of deceased Kartar Singh. The defendant-petitioner had resisted the suit on a plea that Kartar Singh aforementioned was a relative of his and he was permitted to use a part of his court-yard, as a passage, only as a licencee and that he had no right to use the court-yard as a passage otherwise. While denying that Jeoni was wife of Kartar Singh, it was averred that she was residing in the house of Kartar as his tenant and it was at his request to Kartar Singh only that she was also permitted the use of the court-yard aforementioned as a passage to reach Jheoranwali street. The plea raised was that Jeoni was only a licencee and had, thus, no title to that passage which she could have sold to plaintiff- petitioner. The defendant petitioner wanted to amend the written Civil Revision No. 2565 of 2009 -4- **** statement in appeal by raising a plea that she had no right to “to provide any right in the site in dispute to the plaintiff Ram Bhagat for its use through the alleged registered sale deed dated 23.12.1996. Even the permission given by the defendant to Jeoni to use the site in dispute came to an end automatically with the sale of house of Kartar Singh by Jeoni. Therefore, the alleged sale deed in question executed by Jeoni in favour of the plaintiff does not confer any right upon the plaintiff to use the site in dispute.” The other plea proposed to be raised was that Jeoni was not entitled to sell the house belonging to Kartar Singh as she had not been legally married to him. Further plea in the context was that she was, infact, the wife of one Raje Ram while Kartar Singh had been married to Lajwanti who died much after the death of Kartar Singh. The learned Ist Appellate Court rightfully held that proposed amendment was not merely clarificatory in nature and it would have enabled the defendant-respondent to add a fresh plea of resistance which was not permissible in appeal. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is ehdl to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 14,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE