Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Josephine Rebekkal @ James Mary vs Kalaimani
2021 Latest Caselaw 22525 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22525 Mad
Judgement Date : 17 November, 2021

Madras High Court
Josephine Rebekkal @ James Mary vs Kalaimani on 17 November, 2021
                                                                         C.R.P.(MD) No.1582 of 2021

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 17.11.2021

                                                      CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                            C.R.P.(MD) No.1582 of 2021
                                                       and
                                            C.M.P.(MD) No.8645 of 2021

                Josephine Rebekkal @ James Mary                            ... Petitioner

                                                        vs.

                Kalaimani                                                  ... Respondent

                PRAYER:- This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
                to set aside the order dated 08.11.2018 in I.A.No.349 of 2018 in O.S.No.360 of
                2018 pending on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif (Incharge),
                Lalgudi.

                                     For Petitioner    : M/s.V.Sujatha


                                                      ORDER

The plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner before this Court, is

challenging the order dated 08.11.2018 of the learned Additional District

Munsif (Incharge), Lalgudi, in I.A.No.349 of 2018 in O.S.No.360 of 2018, in

and by which, the learned Judge had dismissed the amendment petition filed by

the petitioner/plaintiff.

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.1582 of 2021

2.The facts in brief, which are necessary for disposing of the above Civil

Revision Petition, are herein below narrated:-

3.The petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.360 of 2018 for bare

injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her enjoyment of the

suit property by putting up a construction or in any other fashion obstructing her

enjoyment. The suit schedule was a site with building comprised in Old.S.No.

125/part New S.No.197/10 and S.No.197/11 in Laldudi Taluk, Sirumayangudi

Village, Trichy District.

4.The case of the petitioner was that this property belonged to one

Sandhanammal, W/o.Sinnappan. Sinnappan and Sandhanammal had two

daughters, namely, James Mary and Susai Mary and one son, namely,

Irudhayasamy, who was the father of the petitioner herein. James Mary had

executed a Will dated 31.12.1968 bequeathing her share in the property in

favour of the petitioner, who was taking care of her. After the death of

Sinnappan, Sandhanammal, Irudhayasamy and James Mary, the petitioner was

in enjoyment of the property bequeathed to her under the Will. The suit property

is the 5th item of property in the Will. It was the case of the petitioner that the

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.1582 of 2021

respondent, who had no right to the property, was trying to interfere with her

possession and therefore, the suit.

5.The respondent had filed a written statement interalia contending that

the suit was filed on 17.09.2018, thereafter, the petitioner has come forward

with an application in I.A.No.349 of 2018 stating that she was unaware that her

property situate in S.No.197/11 had been subdivided as S.No.197/15, in respect

of which, patta had been granted in favour of the respondent. She would

therefore seek to have an amendment to include S.No.197/15 in the suit

schedule property.

6.The respondent had filed a counter interalia contending that the

petitioner was allotted patta in respect of an extent of 00054 sq.mts. in S.No.

197/10 as early as in the year 1992. As regards the property comprised in S.No.

197/11, the same belonged to the Revenue Authorities and the same had been

subdivided as S.No.197/15 to an extent of 00054 sq.mts., for which, the

defendant had been granted patta. The remaining extent continues to remain as a

vacant Natham. In fact, the petitioner was very much aware about the

subdivision as she had already raised a dispute before the Tahsildar, before

whom she had given a petition. The Revenue Divisional Officer after an enquiry

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.1582 of 2021

had held that an extent of 00054 sq.mts., in S.No.197/11 belonged to the

respondent and patta was granted in her favour. This extent was subdivided as

S.No.197/15. Therefore, even prior to the filing of the suit in O.S.No.360 of

2018, the orders had been passed subdividing the property. The petitioner was

fully aware about the same. Therefore, the contention that she was not aware of

it and come to know about it only recently is nothing but an entirely false

statement. Therefore, the respondent sought to have the application dismissed.

7.The learned Additional District Munsif (In-charge), Lalgudi after

hearing both parties dismissed the above application stating that the petitioner

has not produced any document to show her ownership on S.No.197/11 and

could therefore not seek to have the amendment granted. The learned Judge also

observed that the petitioner has not given any details as to the extent in S.No.

197/15 in respect of which she was claiming an injunction. Since the

amendment sought for was rather vague, the learned Judge had dismissed the

said petition. Challenging the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

8.Heard the learned counsels on either side.

9.Perusal of the records would indicate that even prior to the filing of the

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.1582 of 2021

suit, the petitioner was aware about the subdivision of S.No.197/11 as she had

herself filed a complaint before the Revenue Authorities. Thereafter, the

Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted an enquiry pursuant to which patta

was granted to the respondent with respect to an extent of 0054 sq.mts., in an

extent of 00500 sq.mts., in S.No.197/11 and this 00054 sq.mts., alone has been

subdivided as S.No.197/11. The petitioner has not described the extent of land

enjoyed by her in S.No.197/11 to prove that she has been in enjoyment of the

entire extent. In fact, the extent of land comprised in S.Nos.197/10 or 197/11

has not been described in the suit schedule. Therefore, the amendment as sought

for has been rightly rejected by the learned District Munsif (In-charge), Lalgudi.

I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional

District Munsif (Incharge), Lalgudi, in I.A.No.349 of 2018 in O.S.No.360 of

2018 dated 08.11.2018.

10.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                Index             : Yes / No                                    17.11.2021
                Internet          : Yes / No
                mm



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

                                                    C.R.P.(MD) No.1582 of 2021



                                                                P.T.ASHA, J.

                                                                          mm

                To

                The Additional District Munsif,
                Lalgudi.




                                                  C.R.P.(MD) No.1582 of 2021




                                                                   17.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter