Madras High Court
Selvakumar vs Verusa Chinnammal on 10 February, 2025
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
C.R.P.No.426 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 10/2/2025
CORAM
The Hon'ble Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.No.426 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.2594 of 2025
1. Selvakumar
2. Mohandas
3. Samant Palanivelu ... Petitioners
vs
1. Verusa Chinnammal
2. Thelliya Seerangan
3. Thelliya Rajamanickam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the fair and decreetal order dated 2/1/2025 made in I.A.No.5 of 2023
in O.S.No.170 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Namakkal.
For petitioner ... Mr.N.Manoharan
-----
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
C.R.P.No.426 of 2025
ORDER
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application seeking leave to file an
additional written statement, petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court.
2. The short facts which has led to the filing of the Civil Revision
Petition are herein below set out -
The plaintiffs who are the civil revision petitioners had filed
O.S.No.170 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Namakkal,
seeking the relief of declaration that the suit first item of property belongs to
plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the second item to the third plaintiff. They are in
absolute possession and enjoyment of the same.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first item of property belongs
to the first defendant and his son Balaraj from whom plaintiffs 1 and 2 had
purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 6/10/1995. From
the date of the purchase, plaintiffs 1 and 2 have been in possession and
enjoyment of the first item of property. On the date of purchase, the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
plaintiff was a minor and therefore, third defendant, his father represented
him as his guardian. However, the property is in possession and enjoyment
of the first plaintiff. After the second plaintiff had attained majority, he has
also been enjoying the property along with the first plaintiff. The father of
the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the third defendant has not handed over original
documents to the plaintiffs.
4. Likewise, the third plaintiff had purchased the second item of
property from the first defendant and his son Balraj under a registered sale
deed dated 19/1/1987 and from that date, he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the said property.
5. Taking advantage of the fact that plaintiffs had not mutated their
revenue records in their name, defendants 2 and 3 are claiming that the
property belongs to them. On 27/5/2013, they obstructed the enjoyment of
the property by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had lodged a complaint with
the local Police Station.
6. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that one portion of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
property belong to Chinna Kuppa Gounden and the other property was
settled on the said Chinna Kuppa Gounder under a settlement deed. The
plaintiffs had purchased the property from the first defendant and his son
Balraj. Balraj had died issueless. On his death, his wife had remarried.
Therefore, she had no interest in the property of Balraj.
7. Apart from the plaintiffs, no other person has a right to the suit
items 1 and 2. Now, the defendants are attempting to interfere with the
plaintiffs peaceful possession of the property. Therefore, they had come
forward with the suit in question.
8. The second defendant had filed a written statement on 3/1/2014.
In the written statement filed by the second defendant, he would state that
defendants 2 and 3 are the grand sons of Thelliya Siranga Goundar through
his son Thelliya Arapalli Gounder. The lands measuring 2.50 acres out of
an extent of 6.40 acres in S.No.386 patta No.406 are the ancestral properties
of defendants 2 and 3. The remaining 3.90 acres belongs to the grandfather
of the defendants 2 and 3, by virtue of the sale deeds dated 23/5/1927,
21/12/1933, 26/4/1943 and 10/3/1947. The properties devolved on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
defendants 2 and 3 by succession and they are in possession and enjoyment
of the same. The properties have been jointly enjoyed by the defendants 2
and 3.
9. It is the case of the second defendant that since the first defendant,
his son and Vellaiyan were creating obstacles in the enjoyment of the
property of the second and third defendants. Therefore, the second and
third defendants had filed O.S.No.11 of 1986 which was decreed in their
favour on 3/7/1986. The second and third defendants were jointly enjoying
certain properties. Since third defendant was causing hindrance in his
enjoyment, second defendant filed O.S.No.434 of 2002, on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Namakkal against the third defendant herein for a
partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property. A
preliminary decree was passed on 1/12/2004. Thereafter, the second
defendant had filed I.A.No.663 of 2005 in the said suit for partitioning the
property by metes and bounds.
10. The second defendant further submitted that on 19/7/2006, a final
decree was also pronounced by the District Munsif, Namakkal and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
second defendant had filed REP No.1247 of 2008 for recovery of
possession for executing the decree and on 11/4/2010, possession was
handed over to the second defendant in terms of the decree and the property
comprised in S.No.386 measuring 6.40 cents was partitioned with an extent
of 3.21 acres being allotted to the second defendant and 3.18 acres in favour
of the third defendant. Against the said decree in O.S.No.434 of 2002, the
second defendant had filed I.A.No.120 of 2010 to condone the delay of
1828 days in filing the appeal. After a detailed enquiry, on 28/9/2010, the
same was dismissed. Against the final decree application in I.A.No.163 of
2005 in O.S.No.434 of 2004, third defendant had also filed C.R.P.Nos.4164
and 4165 of 2010 against the order in I.A.Nos.120 of 2010 and 122 of 2010
and C.R.Ps were dismissed after contest on 13/9/2012. Suppressing all the
above proceedings, the present suit has been filed. The third defendant had
also filed written statement in the same lines.
11. The third defendant had filed written statement on 26/8/2013.
The third defendant would contend that the suit property comprised in
S.No.386 measuring 6.40 acres is in the possession and enjoyment of the
third defendant and his mother Sellammal. After the demise of his father,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
he and his mother have been enjoying the property in the aforesaid survey
belonging to their grandfather by virtue of a sale deed. His grandfather,
Thelliya Siranga Gounder had purchased a 1/5th share of the aforesaid
property under a sale deed dated 23/5/1927. Under sale deed dated
21/12/1993, he had purchased a further 1/12th share i.e., 53 cents. Once
again, under a sale deed dated 26/4/1943, he had purchased a 1/8th share i.e.,
0.80 cents. Thereafter, under a sale deed dated 10/3/1947, he had purchased
a further 1/5th share i.e., 1.28 acres.
12. After his life time, his son, the third defendant's father was in
enjoyment and after his demise, the third defendant and his mother were in
enjoyment. When defendants 1 and 2 and one Vellaiyan had alienated to
obstruct the peaceful enjoyment of the third defendant and his mother, they
had filed O.S.No.11 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Namakkal for a declaration and injunction. On 3/7/1986, an ex parte
decree was obtained by them.
13. On 15/6/2023, plaintiffs had come forward with this application
for filing an additional written statement. The plaintiffs would rely upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
contents of the written statement relating to the various civil proceedings
and go on to state that the consequent possession was therefore, erroneous.
Therefore, he would submit that there is a necessity to amend the plaint.
Extensive details are sought to be introduced in this interlocutory
application. The defendants had contested the same. Ultimately, by order
dated 2/1/2025, the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the said
application. Aggrieved by which the petitioners are before this Court.
14. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
15. Even according to the plaintiffs, second defendant had filed his
written statement on 3/1/2014 and the third defendant filed his written
statement on 26/8/2013. The original suit has been filed to declare that the
plaintiffs are the owners of the suit items of property and that their
possession should not be interfered with.
16. The respondents have questioned the very filing of the said
petition stating that it is highly belated, which was filed after 9 ½ years of
filing the written statement and that apart, now by reason of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
amendment, the petitioners seek to set aside the orders that have been
passed in the earlier proceedings. All of which have been proceeded with
by the father of the petitioners herein.
17. In the written statement that have been filed in the years 2013
and 2014, defendants 2 and 3 have extensively discussed about the various
documents as also the legal proceedings. Despite the same, plaintiffs have
not come forward to file this amendment petition much earlier. In fact, in
paragraph Nos.8 to 11 of the written statement of the second defendant,
these proceedings have been discussed with at length. Therefore, the
learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, has rightly rejected the
application for amendment as being filed belated and an after thought. I
see no reason to this well considered judgment of the learned Additional
Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
18. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10/2/2025
mvs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
P.T.ASHA,J
mvs.
To
1. The Additional Sub-Court, Namakkal
10/2/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
