Amendments to a plaint are permissible for effective resolution of disputes, but claims that are time-barred cannot be allowed, especially when they would divest the opposing party of accrued rights.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an Order being no. 17 dated January 18, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court at Medinipur, District Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No. 207 of 2020.

2. By the order impugned, the application for amendment of plaint and the temporary injunction are allowed subject to payment of cost.

3. The opposite parties herein filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the specific case of the opposite parties in the plaint that Jyotindranath Bag and Motindranath Bag, were the exclusive owners of A schedule property. After the death of Jyotindranath Bag, his brother namely, Motindranath Bag became the exclusive owner of the A schedule property. Motindranath Bag died in the year 1983, leaving behind him surviving plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 and one Sambhunath Bag (since deceased) as his legal heir and heiresses. After the death of Motindranath Bag the plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 and Sambhunath Bag (since deceased) became the owners of A schedule property by virtue of inheritance. Sambhunath Bag died in the year 2019 leaving behind him surviving the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 2 to 5 as his only heirs. Upon the death of Sambhunath Bag the defendant nos. 2 to 5 inherited the share of their father in the A schedule property. While the plaintiffs were exercising their right, title and interest and possession over A schedule property according to their shares by way of specific demarcation, the defendant no. 1 entered into the A schedule suit property on 22.06.2020 with some anti-social elements in the locality and started the measurement work. Upon enquiry the defendant no. 1 disclosed that Sambhunath Bag transferred the entire A schedule property in favour of the defendant no. 1 by a registered deed of sale. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant no. 1 threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the A schedule suit property by force which compelled them to file the instant suit. The opposite parties have prayed for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession in respect of A schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing the peaceful possession of the opposite parties over the A schedule property.

4. The suit property which has been described in schedule A to the plaint comprises of plot nos. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 within Mouza Maliara, J.L no. 176 CS Khatian no. 21/1 under Police Station Medinipur in the District of Paschim Medinipur.

5. The defendant/ petitioner no. 1 herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained therein. The specific case made out by defendant no. 1 in the written statement is that his mother namely, Kiran Bala Chowdhury alias Kiran Bala Dasi purchased the suit plots by virtue of Sale Certificate being no. 21/ 1941 dated 19.07.1941. It has been further stated in the written statement that the name of the mother of the defendant no. 1 was recorded in t