Ganpat (Died) Through Lrs vs Mohitram, S/o. Bodhiram

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Chh) 328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PARTH PRATEEM SAHU
Ganpat (Died) Through Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Mohitram, S/o. Bodhiram – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Meena Shashtri, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sachin Nidhi with Mr. Anjay Mishra, Advocates, Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy.A.G.

JUDGMENT :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Learned counsel for appellants submits that she has moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amending the plaint. She contended that inadvertently in the plaint, appellants/plaintiff could not plead the fact that the entire property recorded in name of Dokara, his father in law and father of testator, Anand Kunwar has been gifted in joint name of Anand Kunwar and plaintiff vide its gift deed dated 13.03.1975. She contended that as the entire property of Dokara was gifted to them, both of them became joint owner, therefore, will executed by Anand Kunwar on 19.06.2005 was not a valid document, therefore, she want to amend the plaint in paragraph No.8 as Para 8.A that late Anand Kunwar has not succeeded the property from his late father Dokara in fact Anand Kunwar received the same from Dokara by way of gift deed dated 13.03.1975, therefore, the property was self acquired property of plaintiff, and late Anand Kunwar and plaintiff is legal heir of late Anand Kunwar and successor of property.

2. Prayer made in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is opposed by learned counsel for respondent.

3. I have heard learned counsel for par