JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners, who are defendants in Title (Partition) Suit No.105 of 2011, are aggrieved of order dated 18.12.2017 by which amendment in the plaint has been permitted.

2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioners is that had the sale-deeds by which a part of the suit properties has been transferred to strangers been executed after 25.08.2015 those sale-deeds could have been challenged by way of amendment in the plaint, but not a sale-deed executed prior to this date. In short, a subsequent event cannot be a basis for amendment in the plaint.

3. Title (Partition) Suit No.105 of 2011 was instituted by Narendra K. Patel @ Nandu Patel and Ravi Jaiswal for a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest over the schedule ''B'' property and if finally it is found that there was no partition, in the alternative, a preliminary decree for partition of schedule ''A'' property to the extent of their share purchased in schedule ''B'' property. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the suit property, which comprised of 3600 square feet land with dilapidated house standing thereon, was owned by late Harnam Singh who was common ancestor of the defendant nos. 1 to 12. The suit property was allotted to him by the lessor-M/s Tata Steel Limited. He died intestate leaving behind his widow-Thakar Kaur, four sons and two daughters upon whom the suit property devolved on death of Harnam Singh. The defendant nos.6 and 8 and 9 to 12 have sold their respective shares in the suit property which are described in schedule ''B'' through registered sale-deed dated 10.03.2011 and delivery of possession of schedule ''B'' land was given to the plaintiffs. It is pleaded that the defendant nos.3 and 5 entered into an agreement with defendant nos.13 and 14 in respect of the entire suit property described in schedule ''A'', whereupon the plaintiffs approached the defendant nos.1 to 5 as well as defendant nos.13 and 14 not to raise any construction over schedule ''B'' property, however, when they did not listen to the plaintiffs, compelled, the plaintiffs are seeking partition to the extent of their share in schedule ''A'' property.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant nos.1, 6 and 8 to 12 by filing written statement on 22.11.2011 and by the defendant nos.13 and 14 who have filed written statement of defence on 17.12.2011. The defendant nos.2 to 5 have filed their written statement of defence on 17.01.2012. The defendant nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 12 have taken a stand that there was an amicable partition in which the defendant no.1 transferred his %th share in schedule ''A'' property to defendant no.3 as well as defendant nos. 9 to 12 and the defendant no.6 and 8 have sold their share to the plaintiffs. They have thus supported the plaintiffs. The defendant nos.2 to 5, however, have raised various objections to claim for partition by the plaintiffs and they have taken a position that during his life-time Harnam Singh had acquired several properties in Punjab and Assam and there was an amicable partition between his legal heirs and successors of all the properties belonging to him. The property situated at House No.73, Pennar Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur which is schedule ''A'' property fell in the joint share of Pratap Singh and Deedar Singh and property situated at Jugsalai, Jamshedpur fell in the share of Swarn Kaur. In course of time Pratap Singh transferred his / share in schedule ''A'' property in favour of defendant no.3 through a registered sale-deed dated 28.01.2009. In respect of the remaining / share in schedule ''A'' property Pratap Singh-defendant no.1 has transferred the same in favour of Hanspal Singh-defendant no.3 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs.

5. At the initial stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC which was rejected by an order dated 03.03.2012. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed M.A. No.41 of 2012, however, this miscellaneous appeal was also dismissed by an o