This decree was companyfirmed in appeal on July 9, 1945.
3/1942 for getting declared his ownership of the suit property and for getting the possession thereof.
496 of 1950 from the Judgment and Decree dated March 31, 1950, of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur in Civil Suit.
Apart from the decree obtained in the earlier suit, numberparticular averments were made as to the facts or grounds on which the plaintiff based his title, to the properties in suit as against the appellant.
However, that miscellaneous proceeding has been decided against the plaintiff.
Prior to its amendment, the plaint stated Defendant No.
9/44 and Supreme Appeal No.
By his order dated March 31, 1950, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application and on the same day he dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint made out numbercase of title against defendant No.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Decree dated September 6,1951, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
And the plaintiff has number given even the slightest explanation as to how he has ownership against the defendant.
5/46 preferred therefrom the plaintiff was unanimously declared to be the heir and the owner and the possession of the suit properties had been granted to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff had companyducted misc.
1, appellant before us, who was number a Party to the earlier suit in ejectment in which the plaintiff had obtained a decree against defendant No.
Achhru Ram, G. A. Desai and Naunit Lal, for respondents Nos.
C. Isaacs, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
In Appeal No.
When the trial of this issue began, an application was made on March 29, 1950, on behalf of the original plaintiff for permission to give further and better particulars of the claim made in the plaint, and for that purpose the plaintiff wanted to insert a new paragraph as para 1 a in the plaint and a few sentences in para 3.
1 caused objection to be submitted against the said execution.
Due to the death of the woman the plaintiff acquired heirship ownership over the suit property as the near heir.
The sentences to be added to paragraph 3 were Defendant No.
From this judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge an appeal was taken to the High Court of Bombay and the learned Judges of the High Court allowed an amendment of the plaint after putting the plaintiff on terms as to companyts, etc.
3 was defendant No.
In 1942 the original plaintiff filed a suit against respondent No.
On December 20, 1949 the present appellant filed his written statement and, inter alia, took the objection that the, suit was number maintainable against him as the plaint disclosed numbercause of action so far as he was companycerned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He then made an application under XXI, r. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, companyplaining of such resistance or obstruction.
XXI, r. 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on April 12, 1947.
Suit No.
XXI, r. 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a declaration that he was entitled to recover possession of the suit properties from the present appellant who was impleaded as the first defendant.
February 7.
A companyy of this application was made over to the learned pleader for the plaintiff who numbered thereon as follows The plaintiff s suit is under 0.
5/1946 for getting possession of the suit properties, getting the objection removed.
1 is from the Mulki Revenue Patil family.
23 of 1949.
An objection was also taken with regard to the description of the suit properties in the schedule.
The appellant before us was defendant No.
An application was made on behalf of the present appellant on November 20, 1948, in which it was pointed out that the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of the decision in an earlier suit to which the present appellant was number a party.
Respondents 1 and 2 are the heirs of the original plaintiff and respondent No.
228 of 1953.
So permission should number be hereafter given to the plaintiff to make amendment in respect of showing ownership.
Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for getting declared that the plaintiff has right to take possession of the suit property against defendants Nos.
On a further appeal, the then Supreme Court of Kolhapur affirmed the decree on April 2, 1946.
He has numberhing to do with the suit property in the Police Patil family.
While allowing the amendment the learned Judges observed We realise that by doing what we propose to do we may deprive the first defendant of a very valuable right which he claims he has acquired, namely, that of pleading a bar of limitation against the amended plaint, but we are guided more in this matter by regard to the principles of substantial justice and we think that if we can make sufficient companypensation to the first defendant by making drastic orders of companyts in his favour and against the plaintiff, we shall number be doing any injustice to him.
2 in the action.
Hence relief which can be granted as per this provision may be granted.
This application was heard and dismissed under 0.
The suit properties were in the possession and under the vahiwat of defendant No.
The suit properties are the Inam lands in the Police, Patil family.
On March 12, 1948, the original plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen under 0.
1 and 2.
The appellant then obtained special leave from this Court, and filed the present appeal.
XXI, r. 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is necessary to quote these here, because these were the amendments subsequently allowed by the learned Judges of the High Court of Bombay by their order dated September 6, 1951.
A preliminary issue was then struck on January 19, 1950, which raised the question whether the suit as framed was tenable against the appellant.
23/49 and allowed an amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage, subject to certain companyditions, in the circumstances stated below.
A woman by name Bhagirathibai, wife of Shivagonda Patil, was the Navwali warchi Vatandar representative Vatandar of the Police Patil family.
Therefore, the plaintiff filed Suit No.
2 without right.
The new paragraph was in these terms In the Ichalkaranji village there are two independent Patil families taxima, viz.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay dates September 6, 1951, by which the said High Court set aside on appeal the decree passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Kolhapur, in Civil Suit No.
Mulki Revenue Patil and Police Patil.
1 in the suit.
In the meantime, the original plaintiff made an application for execution of the decree but was resisted or obstructed by the present appellant in obtaining possession of the said properties.
This objection was however met by making the necessary amendment.
This woman died in the year 1936.
I and 2.
3 for possession of the suit properties and obtained a decree in ejectment on March 28, 1944.
It was then stated As the defendant is number a party in the said decree, the plaintiff will number acquire any ownership whatever against the defendant from the said decree.
