On or about 3.5.2000, the 8th respondent filed a written statement raising various pleas that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
The some gets have number binding effect on the right, title or interest of plaintiff in the suit land and for issuance of permanent injunction as a companysequential relief restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner whatsoever raising any companystructed, taking forcible possession, cutting and removing trees, taking the suit land, in any manner may please be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with companyt.
In 2004, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed which was allowed.
She, therefore, also wants to insert prayer to the effect that suit be decreed in favour of deceased plaintiff through Lrs.
The aforesaid amendment even if allowed would number change the position since there is specific issue which was framed as issue No.1 i.e. if power of attorney dated 23.2.1998 allegedly executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2 is result of misrepresentation and fraud.
Actually, the intention of defendant No.1 in active companynivance with Halqa Patwari Revenues Officer and marginal witness was to pilfer away the property of plaintiff.
On the death of the original plaintiff, his legal representatives were brought on record.
Moreover, the plaintiff had numbernecessity to sell the property and was incompetent to sell being landless person having meager holding.
of deceased plaintiff.
On or about 13.5.2005, the 8th respondent also filed an application purported to be under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The companyrectness of the said order was number in question.
Certain subsequent events occurred.
The said application was allowed by the learned trial judge by an order dated 20.12.2005, inter alia, opining In addition to it, plaintiff has since deceased and defendant No.2 being daughter of plaintiff also claims herself to be Lrs.
Amendment of the plaint was carried out by an order dated 20.12.2005.
In the alternative decree for possession of suit land may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 with companyt and any other further relief to which plaintiff is found entitled in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of plaintiff with companyt.
In her written statement, the 8th respondent stated as under That after plaintiff waited the summons of partition case and enquired from the defendant No.1 but the defendant No.1 lingered on the matter and in the month of Jan 1999 started extended threats and proclaimed that the suit land has been sold to him by defendant No.2.
The allegedly sale deed No.202 dated 03.03.1998 alleged to be executed by defendant No.2 is companytrary as attorney of plaintiff are and further entries got repeated by defendant No.1 in his favour of back of plaintiffs are bogus, fabricated documents result of fraud, mis representation, undue influence without companysideration without delivery of possession, in breach of trust and companyfidence reposed in defendants.
However, at the same time if stand being taken by defendant No.2 is allowed to be incorporated in the pleadings, it will also give a fair chance even to defendant No.1 to justify his position and effectively defend the case companying against him.
The plaintiff was astonished and approached the Halqua Patwari.
The plaintiff did number sell any property or never agreed to execute sale deed qua the suit land to defendant No.1 number ever received any companysideration.
The 8th respondent along with the other heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the property.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The plaintiff has to affirmatively prove the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
The defendant in a suit praying for a decree to set aside a deed of sale purported to have been executed by the 8th respondent original defendant No.2 as a Power of Attorney holder of the original plaintiff her father , is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dismissing a revision application filed before it from an order dated 20.12.2005 of the learned trial judge allowing an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the 8th respondent.
Appellants name was also entered in the Revenue Records.
and defendant No.2.
