Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This appeal is by defendants No. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree of both the courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff for separate possession by partition of the property, namely, House Nos. 4507/2, 4505/2 and 4403/2 situated in Mohalla Chatta Nanu Mal, Patiala is decreed and a preliminary decree is passed declaring the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 to have l/3rd share each in the property in dispute and that the plaintiff is entitled to separate possession of his l/3rd share.

2. On 04-08-1982, the plaintiff filed the suit for separate possession alleging therein that the property in dispute belong to their father Chiranji Lal who had died in the year 1954, leaving behind plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 as his sons, defendants No. 3 and 4 as his daughters and Laxmi Devi as his widow. Since the death of Chiranji Lal had occurred before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, therefore, only plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 succeeded to the property in dispute in equal shares. It was alleged that their mother Laxmi Devi has also expired. It was claimed in the plaint that the properties of the parties were not partitioned and they were joint.

3. In response to this plaint, defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement on 16-10-1982 in which, it was pleaded that only House Nos. 4403/2 and 4505/2 were left joint, whereas, House No. 4507/2 and other joint articles, jewellery etc. were partitioned by way of oral partition. It was further pleaded that the plan of the house was prepared and portions falling to the share of the plaintiff and defendants were earmarked and consequently on 23.04.1976, a memorandum of partition was prepared. It was further pleaded that this partition had taken place amicably to avoid any dispute and to maintain good relations between the family members.

4. On 13.12.1982, replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in which it was denied that any oral partition had taken place. It was denied that any plan was prepared. It was denied that any memorandum of partition was prepared on 23.04.1976.

5. Since, the defendants No. 1 and 2 were relying upon a site plan and the memorandum of partition dated 23.04.1976 in their written statement, the same were put to the plaintiff in the proceedings under Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C., where he made a statement on 03.06.1983 in respect of document which is named as Deed of family partition and site plan of the triple storey house No. 4507/2 which were marked as Mark "A" and Mark "B" respectively. The statement of the plaintiff which was recorded on oath is reproduced as under:

The documents Mark "A" and Mark "B" bear my signatures. Vide this partition, I got one barsati and my water has been stopped by the defendants. The courtyard and passage (deori) had not been partitioned, the remaining house had been partitioned. I have right to use the court yard and the passage (deori). I have right to use the barsati. A motor is installed in the court yard, of which, the connection is in my name and the defendants stops me to run my own meter. My wire has been cut. RO & AC Sd/- Prem Chand 3/6/83

6. After suffering the above statement, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 19.08.1983 in order to explain the document Mark "A" and Mark "B". In the aforesaid application, it was mentioned that since defendants No. 1 and 2 are not allowing the petitioner to use water and also threatening the petitioner not to use Barsati, the necessity for the amendment of the plaint has arisen. Pursuant to that, para 6-A and 6-B are sought to be added which are reproduced as under:

6-A: That a document regarding faked partition dated 23.4.1976 as agreement of partition was executed but actual possessions were not taken according to it. The parties were already in possession as they are now. Moreover, the plaintiff has not been given the Barsati also by the defendan