O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. These two Appeals arise out of the impugned orders dated 22.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, in (i) Civil Revision No. 15 of 2018 and (ii) Miscellaneous Petition No. 3370 of 2019, whereby the plaint filed by the Appellant (original plaintiff) in Civil Suit No. 533-A of 2017 has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), and the subsequent amendment granted by the Trial Court has also been set aside.

Signature Not Verif3ied. The property in dispute (hereinafter referred to as the Digitally signed by N D 18E a :tE 1e 5T : :U 2 30 5 K 2 IH 5 S.A T0J 3U .2R 1IA “suit property”) consists of:

Reason:

 Agricultural land measuring approximately 49 bigha 6 biswa, bearing Survey Nos. 18, 19, 22, 23, 120–158, 162–169, 173, 175–189 in Village Ghatampur, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh;

and  A house property known as “Mohite ki Bagiya”

in the same village.

According to the Appellant, the suit property originally belonged to late Shri Vijay Singh Mohite, who remained unmarried and died intestate on

11.05.2002.

4. It is the case of the Appellant that upon the demise of late Shri Vijay Singh Mohite, the suit property devolved on him by virtue of being his agnate. He claims to be the grandson of the brother of the grandfather of late Shri Vijay Singh. Further, he asserts that he has been in possession of the major portion of the suit property, barring one small room in the house property.

5. Respondent No.1 (original defendant) is Smt. Nandita Singh, daughter of Smt. Aruna Singh and Shri Divakar Vikram Singh. The Appellant avers that Smt. Aruna, who worked as a domestic helper in late Shri Vijay Singh’s household, was allowed, along with Nandita Singh, to occupy one portion (a single room) of “Mohite ki Bagiya” out of goodwill.

6. After late Shri Vijay Singh’s demise, Respondent No.1 began claiming title in three distinct ways:

 As the biological daughter of late Shri Vijay Singh,  As his adopted daughter, and  On the basis of an alleged Will dated

04.04.2002.

The Appellant alleges these claims are inconsistent, particularly questioning the validity of the Will under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the feasibility of any adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

7. Eventually, Respondent No.1 relied on the alleged Will to have her name mutated in the revenue records on 10.10.2002. The Appellant challenged the mutation before higher revenue authorities, which culminated in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashing the mutation. The Division Bench, in turn, upheld that decision and observed that issues of title and genuineness of the Will must be determined in regular suit before the civil suit.

8. Accordingly, the Appellant filed Civil Suit No. 533-A of

2017 before the learned Seventh Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior, seeking, inter alia:

 A declaration that Respondent No.1 has no valid title to the suit property and that the alleged Will dated 04.04.2002 is forged;

 A permanent injunction restraining Respondent No.1 from interfering with their possession.

 He asserted continuous possession over the agricultural land and most of “Mohite ki Bagiya,” conceding that only a single room is occupied by Respondent No.1.

9. In response, Respondent No.1 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, primarily stating that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1964 (SRA hereinafter), on the ground that the Appellant did not seek possession of the portion allegedly occupied by Respondent No.1.

10. By an order dated 22.11.2017, the Trial Court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. While noting that the Appellant had omitted a prayer for possession as to the single room, it permitted an amendment to the plaint instead of dismissing the suit outright.

11. Subsequently, the Appellant filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed on 13.05.2019, since no written statement had