Madras High Court
Palaniammal vs Saraswathi on 9 September, 2025
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 09/09/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)Nos.14693 and 14694 of 2025
1. Palaniammal,
2. Balasubramaniam,
3. Senthilkumar, ... Petitioners / Plaintiffs
(in both CRPs)
Vs
1. Saraswathi,
W/o. Rasappan,
Veeranampalayam,
Mookkanakurichi Post,
Karur Taluk.
2. Banumathi,
W/o. Periyasamy,
Valayalkaranpudur,
Balarajapuram,
Krishnarayapuram Taluk
Karur District. ... Respondents / Defendants
(in both CRPs)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
PRAYER in CRP(MD)No.2447 of 2025:-
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of
India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.06.2025 passed in
IA No.01 of 2023 in OS No.265 of 2011 on the file of Learned Principal
Sub Court, Karur.
PRAYER in CRP(MD)No.2448 of 2025:-
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of
India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.06.2025 passed in
IA No.01 of 2023 in OS No.315 of 2011 on the file of Learned Principal
Sub Court, Karur.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil,
Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.K.Suresh
ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the fair and
decreetal orders dated 26.06.2025 passed in IA No.01 of 2023 in OS No.
265 of 2011 and in IA No.01 of 2023 in OS No.315 of 2011 on the file of
Learned Principal Sub Court, Karur and set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the
interlocutary petition filed by the petitioners for filing of the additional
written statement in the suit filed by the respondents and the reply
statement in the suit filed by the petitioners have been negatived by
holding that the petitioners had belatedly filed the present applications.
He would submit that eventhough the suits have been filed in the year
2011 originally an ex parte decree was passed as against the respondents
which came to be challenged by the respondents in an appeal suit in
A.S.No.11 of 2021 in which by a judgment and decree dated 13.04.2022,
the first appellate Court had set aside the ex parte decree on payment of
cost and remitted the matter back to the trial Court to be disposed on
merits after providing an opportunity to the respondents. Therefore,
there has been no delay on the part of the petitioners. He would further
submit that the father of the petitioners had executed a Will which came
to their knowledge only when arrangements to white wash and renovate
the house was undertaken. He would submit that the partition suit filed
by the respondents was originally contested and in view of the surfacing
of the Will, the respondents would not have any right in the suit schedule
property in the suit filed by them and therefore an additional written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
statement on the strength of the said Will had been taken out in the suit
filed by the petitioners and also when a reply statement in the suit filed
by the petitioners have been taken up, the Court below holding that there
is a delay on the part of the petitioners, had rejected the applications. He
would submit that the delay had not been caused by the petitioners and
only on remittal order passed by the first appellate Court in the appeal
suit filed by the respondents, there has been a delay, the same should not
have been counted by the Court below in rejecting the claim of the
petitioners.
3. Countering the arguments Mr. K.Suresh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the delay
has not been explained. He would further submit that having admitted
that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had died intestate, the
petitioners are attempting to bring in a new theory by placing reliance
upon the Will. He would further submit that the said Will is created only
to defeat the interest of the respondents. He would further submit that
the said Will cannot be relied upon by the petitioners in the suit filed by
them as the property covered under the Will is not subject matter of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
suit filed by the petitioners. He would further submit that the stand of the
petitioners is mutually destructive and therefore he should not be allowed
to amend the prayer as rightly held by the Court below. In support of his
contention, he would rely upon the judgment reported in i) AIR 1976
MAD 302 in the case of Murthi Gounder Vs Karuppanna Gounder,
(ii)2000-1-LW 420 in the case of H.Ramachandra Rao Vs A.Mohideen,
(iii)2005-4-LW 482 in the case of Chandra and Others Vs
Ranganathan and (iv)2007-3-LW – 205 in the case of Chinnammal Vs
Shanmugam and others. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments he
would submit that the petitioners cannot be permitted to amend the suit at
the present stage that too after the evidence had been recorded on the
side of the respondents who had been examined as the plaintiffs'
witnesses in the joint trial in both the suits. He would submit that such a
new plea cannot be allowed to be raised after the commencement of trial.
Therefore, he prays this Court to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a
judgment reported in (2009) 15 SCC 528 in the case of Olympic
Industries Vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and Others, would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
contend that the pleadings could be amended at any stage of the
proceedings and that it does not bar any inconsistent plea. Further
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, made in (2025) 3
SCC 356, in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs PAM
Developments Private Limited and another, he would submit that the
amendment is only a continuing cause of action. He would submit that
the execution of a Will by the predecessory of the petitioners came to
light only recently and by allowing the amendment the respondents
cannot be said to be prejudiced upon, as they would have a right to file
an additional written statement on the amended plaint and to contest the
suit. He would submit that the claim made by the petitioners is not
mutually destructive eventhough is inconsistent.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
on either side.
6. In CRP(MD)No.2447 of 2024, the petitioners are plaintiffs and
the respondents are the defendants. The suit relates to the properties held
by one Andiyappa Gounder. The reply statement that has been sought to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
be filed in O.S.No.265 of 2011, do not have any bearing in O.S.No.315
of 2011 in which additional written statement is sought to be filed. In
view of the same, I do not find any error with regard to rejection of the
application for receipt of reply statement in O.S.No.265 of 2011 as the
amendment would not have any bearing in the suit.
7. In CRP(MD)No.2448 of 2024, the claim for partition of the suit
filed by the respondents have been resisted by the petitioners. It is not
disputed that the property involved in the said suit is the property of the
predecesors of the petitioners. The predecessor had died leaving behind
the petitioners and his mother. The respondents had instituted the suit
claiming the share that fell to the mother of the deceased namely one
Chinnasamy, the predecessor of the petitioners. It is the claim of the
petitioners that during the renovation of their house, it had come to their
knowledge that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had executed
a Will in their favour which would definitely have a bearing in the suit
filed by the respondents, but however, subject to the Will being
substantiated. If the suit as framed by the respondents are decreed then
no useful meaning could be given to the Will under which the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
claim right and title and however if amendment is ordered, the
respondents would always have the right to file an additional written
statement to the amended plaint and the suit can be proceeded further.
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are
all prior to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners which had been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would indicate tht the
Court should be liberal in granting amendment at any stage and that such
refusal to amendment should not defeat the rights of the parties. The
delay has not been caused at the end of the petitioners. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the joint trial in
both the suits have been directed after the remand order passed in the
appeal suit filed by the respondent in the year 2023.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the
order made in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.315 of 2011 is liable to be
interfered with and the same is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
10. In fine, CRP(MD)No.2447 of 2025 is dismissed and
CRP(MD)No.2448 of 2025 is allowed and the additional written
statement filed by the petitioners is directed to be taken on record by the
Court below. On taking on record the additional written statement, the
respondents are granted two weeks time to file their reply statement and
the trial Court shall frame necessary additional issues on the the
additional written statement and reply statement if any, and thereafter
proceed on trial in the suit.
11. Considering the fact that the suit has been filed in the year
2011, there shall be a direction to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Karur
to dispose of the suit in OS No.265 and 315 of 2011, as expeditiously as
possible, however, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
09.09.2025
NCC : Yes /No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pnn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
CRP(MD). Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
pnn
To
1. The Principal Sub Judge, Karur.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
ORDER
IN
CRP(MD) Nos.2447 and 2448 of 2025
Date : 09/09/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 03:18:33 pm )
