CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Shri Varinder Mohan Singh Grover vs Smt. Jeet Kaur and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 May 1992 · Citation: (1992) 102 PLR 95

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Jhanji, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17, 115
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 3333 of 1991 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 8337-CII of 1991
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 350 words

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Plaintiffs Shrimati Jeet Kaur widow of S. Mohan Singh Grover and Shrimati Avinash Kaur daughter of Shrimati Jeet Kaur filed a suit for permanent injunction against Shri Varinder Mohan Singh Grover and Chitrinder Mohan Singh Grover from restraining them from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. It was claimed in the suit that the plaintiffs are owners-in-possession of the property on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by Dr. Niranjan Singh Grover. Apart from claiming ownership on the basis of the Will, they also claimed that they have been in possession for the last more than 12 years and the possession was open, continuous and hostile and therefore, they have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession.

2.

During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed for the amendment of the plaint and by the proposed amendment, plaintiffs sought relief of declaration in addition to the relief of permanent injunction already claimed in the suit. The said application was allowed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Patiala, vide order dated 27.8.1991. The said order is being impugned in this civil revision.

3.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and perusal of the application for amendment of the plaint, I find that the impugned order calls for no interference. Plaintiffs in the plaint has claimed that they are owners-in-possession of the property on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by Dr. Niranjan Singh Grover as well as that they have become owners by way of adverse possession. By the proposed amendment they are seeking only to add the relief of declaration which can certainly be allowed. There is no variation in the cause of action or in the subject matter of the suit. The suit is at the preliminary stage and no right has accured to the plaintiffs by lapse of time or otherwise and, therefore, I am of the view that the trial Court rightly, exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment of the plaint.

4.

Consequently the civil revision is dismissed. No costs.