Semba Gounder vs Palaniammal
2023 Latest Caselaw 10801 Mad

                                                                       C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 21.08.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                             C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019
                                            and C.M.P.No.23524 of 2019


                     Semba Gounder                                            .. Petitioner

                                                            Vs.




                     1.Palaniammal
                     2. Murugesa Bhoopathy
                     3.Muthuvel                                               .. Respondents



                     PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
                     Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 19.11.2018
                     in I.A.No.268 of 2018 in O.S.No.115 of 2015 on the file of the District
                     Munsif Court at Sankagiri.




                     1/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019




                                        For Petitioner  : Ms. G.Lavanya
                                                          for Mr.T.Saikrishnan
                                        For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Amuthaganesh



                                                                ORDER

The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the 1 st respondent is

the defendant. O.S.No.115 of 2015 on the file of the learned District

Munsif at Sankagiri, was originally presented as O.S.No.131 of 2015

before the learned Vacation Civil Judge at Salem. The suit is filed for a

bare injunction restraining a sole defendant from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

2. Pending the suit, it was claimed that the defendant had alienated

the property to one Murugesa Bhoopathy and one Muthuvel. In order to

implead them, the applications were filed in I.A.No.876 of 2015 and

I.A.No.1201 of 2015. The said applications stood allowed. Murugesa

Bhoopathy and Muthuvel were impleaded as the defendants 2 and 3 in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019

the suit.

3. In the meantime, the original sole defendant Palaniammal filed a

written statement whereunder she has stated that the suit for mere

injunction is not maintainable and the relief of title has also to be sought

for. This is clear from paragraph 9 of the written statement.

Consequently, an application was moved in I.A.No.268 of 2018 in

O.S.No.115 of 2015 seeking amendment to the averments made in the

plaint as well as incorporating certain reliefs including that of declaration

of title.

4. The learned trial Judge treated this application as if it is an

application for consequential amendment pursuant to I.A.Nos.876 and

1201 of 2015 and held that since no such relief was granted in the

aforesaid applications, the prayer for seeking amendment of declaration

of title was not maintainable.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed in the said I.A.No.268 of 2018 in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019

O.S.No.115 of 2015, dated 19.11.2018, the present revision has been

filed by the plaintiff.

6. Heard Ms.G.Lavanya representing Mr.T.Saikrishnan and

Mr.A.M.Amuthaganesh, learned counsel for the respective parties. I have

carefully gone through the records.

7. It is not in dispute that the suit was originally filed for bare

injunction. Pending the litigation, it transpires that the sole defendant had

sold the property to the defendants 2 and 3 and therefore, they were

rightly impleaded as per the orders of the trial Court in I.A.Nos.876 and

1201 of 2015. A perusal of the written statement shows that the title of

the plaintiff having been denied, if the plaintiff were to continue the suit

as it is, it could result in the plaintiff being non-suited. Therefore, the

plaintiff has taken precaution to amend the plaint and to include the

averments in so far as the defendants 2 and 3 are concerned. Such

situation is permissible as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by legal heirs and others

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019

2008 (4) SCC 594 (paragraph 13.1 to 13.3).

8. In the light of the settled position of law, where the title of the

plaintiff has been denied, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint to

seek for appropriate reliefs. The trial Court erred in dismissing the

application for amendment. Consequently, I am constrained to interfere

with the order of the trial Court and the order passed in I.A.No.268 of

2018 in O.S.No.115 of 2015 by the District Munsif Court at Sankagiri

dated 19.11.2018 is set aside. The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the

plaint. On such leave being exercised, the defendant must be granted

sufficient opportunity to file an additional written statement.

9. Mr.A.M.Amuthaganesh requests for expeditious disposal of the

suit in O.S.No.115 of 2015. Once the pleadings and issues are completed,

the learned trial Judge is requested to consider the expeditious disposal

of the suit.

10. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

closed.

21.08.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

kj

To

The District Munsif, Sankagiri.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019

Kj

C.R.P.(PD)No.3591 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.23524 of 2019

21.08.2023

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