G.P. Mittal, J.

IA No.9303/2013 (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) by Plaintiff

1. This suit for permanent injunction was filed by the Plaintiff initially against Defendants no.1 to 3 with the averments that the Plaintiff is absolute owner of property measuring 3157 sq. yds comprising Khasra no.263, Village Chattarpur, New Delhi which was purchased by the Plaintiff from one Yadram on the basis of various documents including Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney. Entire sale consideration having been paid to the earlier said Yadram, the physical possession of the suit property and also the original documents executed by one Bhagwat Singh in favour of Yadram was also handed over to the Plaintiff. Defendants no.1 and 2 are the sons of said Bhagwat Singh. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on 24.09.2008, it transpired that Defendant no.3 in conspiracy and at the behest of Defendants no.1 and 2 visited the suit property and wanted to grab the suit property. Again, an attempt was made by the Defendants on 28.09.2008 to take possession of the suit property forcibly.

2. By an order dated 01.10.2008, an ex parte interim injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants restraining them from taking forcible possession of the suit property. It is further the case of the Plaintiff that in violation of the order dated 01.10.2008, the Defendants took possession of the suit property forcibly. Defendants no.1 and 2 by separate written statement have denied the averments made in the plaint. It has been denied that Bhagwat Singh sold land measuring 1200 sq. yds. to some other person whereas land measuring 3500 sq. yds. after leaving 10 ft. wide road was sold to one Yadram.

3. Defendant no.3 in his written statement took up a plea that the suit has been filed by the Plaintiff in collusion with Defendant no.1. It has been stated that Defendant no.3 is in possession of 1500 sq. yds of the suit property and the remaining of the property is in possession of other persons who have not been impleaded as a party. Since the property was claimed by Defendant no.3 from Yadram, by an order dated 12.09.2011 he was ordered to be impleaded as a party.

4. In his written statement, Defendant no.4 stated that he purchased 3500 sq.yds bearing Khasra No.263 from Bhagwat Singh (father of Defendants no.1 and 2) on 27.11.1990 on the basis of an Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney and other documents and he had been handed over the possession by Bhagwat on paying entire sale consideration. He gave details of transfer of various pieces of land to certain persons as stated in para 2 of the preliminary submission. Defendant no.4 specifically denied having sold land measuring 3157 out of Khasra no.263, Village Chattarpur, New Delhi to the Plaintiff.

5. At this stage, this Court would not go into the questions whether the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as claimed, whether he had really been sold the suit land by Yadram, Defendant no.4 and whether he was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. The Plaintiff seeks amendment of the plaint stating that Defendant no.3 forcibly took possession of the suit property sometime between 04.10.2008 to 10.10.2008. It is further averred that Defendant no.3 claims to have purchased land measuring 1500 sq. yds out of suit property from Yadram by an agreement to sell dated 10.09.2008 and also claims possession from 10.09.2008. The Plaintiff wants to make all these averments by amendment and now seeks a decree of declaration also.

6. The amendment sought has been opposed by filing written reply by Defendants no.1 and 3 primarily on the ground that the averments made in the application are false and that the amendments sought are not necessary for just decision of the controversy between the parties.

7. It may also be noted that Defendant no.1 denies that Defendant no.2 is his sister whereas Defendant no.2 admits such relationship between the two. Defendant no.3 has a