Elayarani vs Parameswarn
2021 Latest Caselaw 11581 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11581 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 June, 2021

Madras High Court

Elayarani vs Parameswarn on 14 June, 2021

                                                                           CRP (PD) No.2050 of 2018


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 14.06.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              CRP (PD) No.2050 of 2018

                     Elayarani                                               ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                     1. Parameswarn
                     2. Rajambal
                     3. Sundaram
                     4. Selvi
                     5. Ramasamy                                            ... Respondents


                     Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution

                     of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 19.01.2018 passed

                     in I.A.No.76 of 2017 in O.S.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional

                     District Court, Kallakurichi and allow the above Civil Revision Petition.



                                           For Petitioner     : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy
                                                                Senior Counsel for
                                                                Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

                                           For Respondents : Mr.R.Balasubramanian
                                                             (for R-1 & R-2)



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/6
                                                                                 CRP (PD) No.2050 of 2018



                                                     ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and

decretal order passed in I.A.No.76 of 2017 in O.S.No.3 of 2012 dated

19.01.2018 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi,

thereby, allowing the petition seeking amendment of plaint.

2. The petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit filed by the first

and second respondents herein for declaration and injunction. Pending

the suit, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a petition seeking amendment of

plaint. The same was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the present

Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit filed by

the respondents 1and 2 herein. The present amendment petition has been

filed after cross examination of D.W.3. In fact, the petitioner also filed a

suit for declaration and partition in O.S.No.4 of 2012, which is a

comprehensive suit in respect of the very same properties. All along, the

respondents stated that the suit properties are ancestral properties. It is

not mere typographical error, whereas the entire suit in O.S.No.3 of 2012

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (PD) No.2050 of 2018

is based on the plea that the suit properties are ancestral properties and

hence, the sale deeds executed unilaterally by the plaintiffs' father in

respect of ancestral properties, are not binding on the plaintiffs. He

further submitted that the Court below simply cited the judgments and

without stating any reason, mechanically allowed the petition for

amendment. It would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1

and 2 submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration

and injunction in respect of the sale deeds dated 16.11.1998 and

09.11.1994 executed in favour of the second defendant as well as the

fifth defendant. While filing the suit, the suit properties were mentioned

as ancestral properties. The present petition is filed by none other than

the daughter of the deceased/first defendant and she had also filed the

said suit for partition in O.S.No.4 of 2012 and it is pending. Therefore,

the present amendment petition is no way going to effect the rights of the

petitioner. Hence, the amendment sought for is only to substantiate the

case of the plaintiffs and nothing to do with the petitioner herein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (PD) No.2050 of 2018

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as

well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

6. The petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit filed by the

respondents 1 and 2 herein for declaration and injunction in respect of

the suit properties. After cross examination of D.W.3, the respondents 1

and 2 herein filed a petition seeking amendment as follows:-

“1/ gpuhjpy; 2?tJ gf;fj;jpy; 3?tJ tupapy; “g{u;tPf”vd;gij

moj;Jtplntz;Lk;/”

7. Originally, the plaintiffs filed the suit mentioning the entire suit

properties as ancestral properties, whereas they want to now amend by

deleting the word "ancestral" in respect of the suit properties. The first

respondent was examined as D.W.3 and he categorically stated that the

suit properties do not only to belong to his father viz., the deceased/first

defendant in the suit and they have no knowledge about the nature of title

to the suit property. That apart, on a perusal of the plaint, they all along

stated that the suit properties are ancestral properties. Therefore, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (PD) No.2050 of 2018

amendment sought for by the respondents 1 and 2 would change the

entire nature of the suit and it would effect the rights of the petitioner

herein.