Oral Judgment:

1. This is a Chamber Summons for carrying out certain amendments in the Plaint. The amendments have arisen for 2 purposes: (i) to bring a new party (Respondent) on record as Defendant No.6 and (ii) to amend certain averments in the Plaint. The Suit, as initially filed, was between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 alone. The Suit was filed upon a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties for development of the suit property. Defendant No.1 was to make out a marketable title. Two certificates of certain Advocates were produced. The Plaintiff was not satisfied with the marketability of the title of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff sought to cancel the contract and sought refund the earnest amount. The Plaintiff has also sought to create a charge on the suit property under the provisions of Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 claim to have title to the suit property. They applied to be brought on record and are accordingly brought on record of the Suit. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 have now transferred their interest to Defendant No.6. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant No.6 is in terms a stooge of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff has sought to bring Defendant No.6 on record as the successor in title of Defendant Nos.2 to 5 who themselves chose to be party Defendants and thereafter created interest in the suit property in pursuance of the title claimed by them.

3. In view of these facts, Defendant No.6 becomes a proper party to the Suit as the reliefs, if any, which would be passed in favour of the Plaintiff, would have to be passed after considering the interest shown by Defendant No.6. In the interest of Defendant No.6 itself, Defendant No.6 has to be brought on record. The Respondent, though served, has not appeared and challenged this Application. Consequent upon bringing the Respondent on record as Defendant No.6, consequential amendments to show who precisely Respondent No.6 is, would also have to be made in the Plaint. Consequential amendments are sought to be made at the end of paragraph 2 of the Plaint. Hence adding the Respondent as Defendant No.6 in making consequential amendments with regard thereto would have to be allowed.

4. Theother part of the amendment is for certain amendments in paragraphs (ii), (v) and (xi) of paragraph 16 of the Plaint.

5. It has been the Plaintiff's contention that Defendant No.1 did not have a clear and marketable title, which he was supposed to make out. What Defendant No.1 sought to make out under the Title Certificate is what is generally called “clear and marketable title”.

6. Title, if any, of any party is required to be marketable. What is clear and marketable title has been averred and specified in other portions of the Plaint by the Plaintiff.

7. Paragraph 16(ii) shows the Plaintiff's averment that no Title Certificate till date has been produced by Defendant No.1 as evidently Defendant No.1 has no title in respect of the suit land, much less any clear or marketable title. This paragraph is sought to be corrected to show that no Title Certificate has been produced by Defendant No.1 as there is no clear and marketable title as specifically set out in paragraph 10 of the Plaint. Paragraph 10 of the Plaint avers about the lack of marketability title. It can be seen that what the Plaintiff proposes to aver is much the same as what the Plaintiff has averred albeit in different words. It does not change the purview of the cause of action or the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff upon the submissions made by the Plaintiff.

8. Paragraph 16(v) shows that far from Defendant No.1 being the owner of the property, the Title Certificate produced by the Defendants shows that certain third parties are owners of the suit

.property. The Plaintiff now desires to add further that those third parties are shown to be owners not of the entire suit property but of certain portions thereof. This amendment tantamounts to a clarification