Madras High Court
Meena vs Veerayee on 5 January, 2021
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 12.07.2021
Pronounced on : 02.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRP(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
and
CMP(MD)No.1835 of 2021
Meena : Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Veerayee
2.Krishnan
3.Narayanan
4.Ganesan
5.Petchiammal
6.Bose : Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, setting aside the order dated 05.01.2021 passed in
I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.198 of 2008 on the file of the Hon'ble
Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sivasubramanian
For 6th Respondent : Mr.A.Srinivasan.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
ORDER
The Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.4
of 2020 in O.S.No.198 of 2008, dated 05.01.2021 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, dismissing the petition filed
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
2.The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and she has filed the above
suit for partition against the respondents herein in O.S.No.198 of 2008 on
the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Aruppukotai. Admittedly,
the first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5,
and the sixth defendant is the purchaser of the fourth item of the suit
property from the defendants 2 to 4.
3.It is evident from the records that the trial of the suit was
completed and when the case was posted for judgment, the learned District
Munsif has suo motu taken up the matter and framed additional issues on
07.02.2021 and directed the parties to adduce additional evidence, if any. It
is further evident that thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the petition in
I.A.No.4 of 2020 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for adding the petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
mentioned property as 12th item of the suit property. The sixth defendant
alone has filed the counter statement, raising objections for the proposed
amendment. The learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has passed the
impugned order on 05.01.2021, dismissing the amendment petition.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the plaintiff has come forward with
the present revision.
4.The petitioner's case is that the learned District Munsif recasted
the issues which includes as to whether the suit is barred for partial
partition?, that the petitioner has omitted to add the house property where
the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 along with their father were living as a
joint family, that the defendants 2 to 4 are now living in the said house
property and the same was omitted to be included by oversight and that
therefore, the proposed amendment is to be permitted.
5.The defence of the 6th defendant is that the plaintiff has already
filed a similar application in I.A.No.1682 of 2018 for adding six items of
property and the said petition was allowed, that the petitioner has filed the
above petition only to drag on the proceedings and that the petitioner's
contention that the house property was omitted to be included by oversight
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
is false and untenable, and that though she had admitted in her evidence
that some more properties are there, she has not included the said
properties in the present petition.
6.No doubt, it is evident from the records that the plaintiff has filed
the amendment application in I.A.No.1682 of 2018 for including six items
of the property and that the said petition was allowed and thereby the
properties were included as items 5 to 11 of the suit properties. Admittedly,
the suit was filed in the year 2008 and already 13 years have lapsed. But at
the same time, it is pertinent to note that after reserving the case for
judgment, the learned Munsif has taken the matter suo motu and recasted
the issues and further directed both the parties to adduce additional
evidence, if any.
7.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, the learned District Munsif has framed as many as 10 issues,
which includes whether the suit is barred for partial partition and that
thereafter, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present application for
including the house property, which was omitted to be included. At this
juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision of this Court in Papathi and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
another Vs. Samyappal and another in CRP(PD)(MD)No.28 of 2018,
dated 01.12.2020 and the relevant passages is extracted hereunder :
“7. I am unable to agree with the contentions of
Mr.V.S.Kesavan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents. The suit is one for partition. It is for the plaintiffs
to include all the partible properties as subject matter of the
suit so that the Court can adjudicate the rights of the parties
without leaving any scope of multiplicity of the proceedings.
In the case on hand, the addition of the properties is to the
advantage of the 2nd defendant who is a purchaser and I am
therefore of the opinion that the learned trial Judge
was not justified in dismissing the application.”
8.In the case on hand also, the suit is for partition. No doubt, there is
a delay in filing the amendment petition, but as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, since the trial Court has framed
the additional issue with respect to the partial partition, the plaintiff was
forced to file the above petition. Since the suit is for partition, the plaintiff
has to include all the properties available for partition so that the Court can
adjudicate the rights of the parties without leaving any scope for
multiplicity of proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
9.Considering the above, the decision of the trial Court in dismissing
the amendment petition is not justified and the same is liable to be set
aside. But at the same time, considering the fact that the suit is pending
from 2008 onwards, this Court is of the view that necessary directions are
to be issued for early disposal of the suit.
10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the
impugned order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.198 of 2008 on the
file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, is set aside and
the amendment petition in I.A.No.1682 of 2018 stands allowed. The trial
Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.09.2021
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
das
To
1.The Principal District Munsif, Aruppukkottai.
2.The Section Officer, (VR Section)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das
CRP(PD)(MD).No.325 of 2021
02.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
