S.B. Sinha, J.

This application is directed against an order dated 12.9.1990 passed by the 3rd Subordinate Judge. Chaibasa in Title Suit No. 10 of 1982, whereby and whereunder the .aid learned court allowed an application for amendment. of plaint filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. The plaintiffs filed the aforementioned suit inter alia, for a decree of declaration in relation to their right, title and interest over the suit plot and a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant from transferring the suit plot in any manner to anybody.

4. According to the plaintiffs, the land in suit was purchased by a deed of sale dated 21.10.1938 by Ratneswar Roy in the name of benami of the mother of the defendant.

5. According to the plaintiffs, the said benamdar had never been in possession of the lands in question.

6. On the other hand, the calc of the petitioner was that his mother was the real owner of the property and not a benamdar of the said Ratneshwar Roy.

7. It was contended by the defendant that Ratheshwar Roy and consequently the plaintiffs were in inpermissive possession of the property in suit and the right, title and interest as also the legal possession thereof bad all along been with his mother and after her death be has been in possession.

8. On 5.12.1990, an application was filed by the petitioner praying therein that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs be dismissed, in view of the provision of Benami Transactions (prohibition of the right to recover Property) Act. 1988 (hereinafter caned as the Act).

9. On 19.4.1989, the opposite parties filed an application for amendment of plaint praying therein that they be allowed leave to amend the plaint contending inter alia, therein that as they had been in possession of the property in suit openly, continuously and within the knowledge of the defendant as adverse to his interest, the plaintiffs had perfected their right, title and interest by adverse porsession, even if it be held that the defendant had legal title in relation to the property in suit.

10. By reason of the impugned order, the learned court below, as noticed hereinbefore, has allowed the said application.

11. Mr. P.K. Sihna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a claim of right titls and interest in a property by adverse possession is ant thesis of a claim of lawful title by the plaintiffs at originally claimed by them in the suit.

12. The learned counsel contended that by reason of the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiffs hive altered the nature and character of the suit which is imeprssible.

The learned counsel, in this connection has strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. vs. Damodar valley Corporation (AIR 1967 S.C., page 96).

13. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that even such a subsequent event could not have been permitted to be brought on records under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon in Frem Raj vs. The D.L.F. Housing & Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (AIR 1968 S.C. page-1355).

14. Mr. S.C. Chhatopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposites parties submitted that plea put forth by the plaintiff by way of the amendment of the plaint is alternative in nuture and bat been taken in view of coming into force of the said Act.

15. The learned counsel further submitted that it is not correct to contend that a plea of adverse possession can not co-exist with the plea of title Claimed by the plaintiffs.

The learned counsel, in this connection, has relied upon in S.M. Karim Vs. Mst Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 S.C., 1254) Appa Trimbak Deshpnde and anr. vs. Waman Govind Despande and others (AIR 1941 P.C. 85), Mottu Bhimudu vs. Guggirala Pitchayya AIR 1946 Madras 497), Gulwant Kaur vs. Mahinder Singh and ors, AIR 1972 Punjab and Haryana 260), and in Nair Service Socie