Abdul Razak Dandroo vs Ghulam Ahmad & Ors.

This revision is directed against an order dated 2121980 passed by Sub Judge, So pore, rejecting the plaintiff's application for amend rent of the

plaint. In the suit the plaintiff had claimed a relief of permanent injunction. His case was that he was the owneroccupier of the disputed land jointly

with defendants 1 to 3. In reply defendants pleaded that he was out of possession and as such the suit in its present form was not maintainable.

During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff asked for amendment; of the plaint, , He mended that he was dispossessed after the institution of the

suit which made it necessary for him to sue for possession. The trial court rejected the application for the amendment For this, the court relied

mainly upon two grounds : firstly, that the motion for amendment was a belated one: and, secondly that the proposed amendment would alter the

nature of the suit.

Counsel for the respondents frankly conceded that he would not be able to support the order on the basis of the reasoning and logic employed

by the trial court. His contention, however, is that the order is supportable on an alternative ground. He Urged that the proposed amendment has

no nexus to the averment made in the plaint and consequently the same cannot be allowed. For, it would introduce an inconsistent case. In this he

forgets that the suit is essentially a suit for title. The plaintiff has claimed title and possession jointly with defendants 1 to 3 In this premises he has

played that the possession should be protected and that the defendants be restrained from disposing of the produce of the fress grown over the suit

land. By means of the proposed amendment he concedes objection of the defendants that he is out of possession though he says that such

dispossession took place during the pendency of the suit and asks for permission to amend the plaint in order to seek possession. The settled

principle is that possession follows title, On this principle he get possession if he is found to be the owner of the property. Since he claims himself to

be the owner, the relief for possession cannot to be foreign to the scope of the suit, Possession has nexus with the title. If he is able to prove that he

has got a subsisting title, the relief for possession will necessarily follow. There is a clear nexus between the two. In this view the argument of the

learned counsel for the respondents appears to be misconceived and cannot be upheld.

The result, therefore, is that this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application of the plaintiff for

amendments is allowed. The pontiff is directed to out the amendments and file the amended plaint within three weeks on payment of Rs. 50/ as

costs. The parties are directed to appeal in the trial Court on 25th of October, 1982.