[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ravindran vs Dr.Ramajayam on 6 January, 2026
2026:MHC:65
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 16 / 12 / 2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 06 / 01 / 2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
AND
CMP NO.9639 OF 2023
Jayabalan (Deceased)
1.Ravindran
2.Ananthavalli @ Rani ... Petitioners /
Respondents 2&5 /
Defendants 2&5
Versus
1.Dr.Ramajayam
2.Raju
3.Ravi
4.Padma
5.Manimekalai
6.Kala ... Respondents 1 to 6 /
Petitioners / Plaintiffs
7.Manokaran
8.Mangaiarkarasi ... Respondents 7&8 /
Respondents 3&4 /
Defendants 3 & 4
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal
Order dated February 16, 2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.53
of 2022 by the Additional District Court, Mayiladuthurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Muthukumar
For Respondents 1 to 6 : Mr.K.A.Mariappan
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
Served – No appearance
For Respondents 7 & 8 : Served – No appearance
ORDER
Feeling aggrieved by the Fair and Decretal Order dated
February 16, 2023 passed by 'the Additional District Court,
Mayiladuthurai' ['Trial Court' for short] in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.53
of 2022, the Respondents 2 and 5 therein / Defendants 2 and 5 have
preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950.
2. The Revision Petitioners herein are the Defendants 2 and
5; Respondents 1 to 6 herein are the Plaintiffs and Respondents 7 and 8
are the Defendants 3 and 4 in the Original Suit in O.S.No.53 of 2022 on
the file of the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3. The case of the Plaintiffs is that Suit Item No.1 and some
more properties originally belonged to Radhalakshmi who is the mother of
the first Plaintiff and grandmother of Plaintiffs 2 to 6. Radhalakshmi
executed a Settlement Deed dated September 10, 1952 in favour of her
husband - Subbiah Naidu, in respect of the said properties including Suit
Item No.1. Her husband - Subbiah Naidu purchased Suit Item No.2 vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
Sale Deed dated February 28, 1957.
3.1. Subbiah Naidu and Radhalakshmi Ammal had three sons
viz., Vasudevan Naidu, Durairaj and Ramajeyam and two daughters viz.,
Navaneetham and Balambigai. Subbiah Naidu during his lifetime
executed a Will dated March 8, 1961 creating life interest in favour of his
wife - Radhalakshmi Ammal and vested remainder to his three sons viz.,
Vasudevan Naidu, Durairaj and Ramajeyam after her lifetime.
3.2. Subbiah Naidu passed away on April 15, 1961. His wife
-Radhalakshmi Ammal passed away on December 18, 1987. Among the
three sons, one son, namely Durairaj, has been missing for the past 45
years. Hence, as per law, he is deemed to be civil dead. Therefore,
Vasudevan and the first Plaintiff-Ramajeyam are entitled each ½ share in
both items of the Suit Properties. Vasudevan Naidu passed away on
February 22, 1997. The Plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the sons and daughters of
Vasudevan Naidu and they are entitled to his share as his legal heirs.
3.3. One Vasudevan Pillai and Devamirdham (both deceased),
who are the parents of the Defendants 1 to 4, were tenants of Suit Item
No.1. One of the sons of Subbiah Naidu namely, Vasudevan Naidu who is
also the father of the Plaintiffs 2 to 6, was working as a Manager in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
Food Corporation of India in various stations and lastly settled at
Thanjavur and passed away in 1997. The other son - first Plaintiff was
working in Tirunelveli, Madurai and later in Chennai as a Medical College
Professor. As they both were residing out of Mayiladuthurai, they did not
take steps to receive rent from the tenants / Defendants 1 to 4. Taking
advantage of the same, the Devamirdham executed a Settlement Deed
dated May 20, 2005 in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 in respect of a
portion of Suit Item No.1. In turn, the first defendant executed an Sale
Deed dated July 14, 2010 in favour of fourth defendant, and the second
defendant executed a Settlement Deed dated October 28, 2010 in favour
of fifth defendant. Further, Devamirdham executed a Settlement Deed
dated May 19, 2005 in respect of a major portion of Suit Item No.2 in
favour of third defendant.
3.4. Hence, the Plaintiffs filed the Suit for declaration of title and
recovery of possession from the Defendants and also sought for
declaration that the three Settlement Deeds dated May 19, 2005, May 20,
2005 and October 28, 2010, and the Sale Deed dated July 14, 2010 are
null and void.
4. The Defendants filed written statement, inter alia, stating
that several years prior to the filing of the Suit, the Defendants had put up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
construction in Suit Item No.1 after obtaining permission from the
competent authority. They further denied the Settlement Deed dated
September 10, 1952, executed by Radhalakshmi in favour of Subbiah
Naidu and the Will dated March 8, 1961, executed by Subbiah Naidu in
favour of the first Plaintiff and his brothers. In short, they denied the
Plaintiffs’ right, title, and interest in the Suit Property.
5. Then the matter was posted for trial. While so, the
Plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VI Rule 17 of 'the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] seeking to amend the
plaint incorporating a prayer for delivery of possession after demolishing
the existing superstructure. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides,
concluded that the prayer sought for by the Plaintiffs is within twelve
years i.e., within the period of limitation and accordingly, allowed the
Interlocutory Application.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the Defendants 2 and
5 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
7. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned Counsel for the Revision
Petitioners would argue that the Original Suit was filed before the
Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai in O.S.No.165 of 2014. Later, it was
transferred to the Trial Court and renumbered as O.S.No.53 of 2022. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
their written statement which was filed as early as in 2015, the Defendants
had pleaded that they had already put up a house construction after
obtaining building approval and permission from the Competent
Authority. The Plaintiffs were well aware of the said fact even before
filing of the written statement. Suppressing the said fact, the Plaintiffs in
their plaint, described the First Item of the Suit Property as a vacant site.
Now, as an afterthought, the Plaintiffs have filed an Interlocutory
Application seeking to amend the prayer by incorporating a relief of
mandatory injunction to demolish the house, which is clearly barred by
limitation. On the very face of it, the amendment sought by the Plaintiffs
to include mandatory injunction is barred by limitation. Hence, the Trial
Court ought not to have allowed the Interlocutory Application.
Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set
aside the Order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
O.S.No.53 of 2022 and dismiss the Interlocutory Application.
7.1. In support of his submission, he would rely on the Judgment
of this Court in Chinnu Padayachi -vs- Dhanalakshmi, reported in 2011
(6) CTC 477.
8. Though Respondents 1 to 6 entered appearance through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
their Counsel - Mr.K.A.Mariappan, he did not appear and argue the matter
despite sufficient opportunities. Though Respondents 7 and 8 were served
with summons, they did not choose to appear before this Court.
9. This Court has considered the submissions made by
Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and also
perused the case file.
10. The Plaintiffs filed the Suit in the year 2014 seeking
declaration of title, recovery of possession, and declaration that the
aforesaid Settlement Deeds and Sale Deed are null and void. Now,
through the Interlocutory Application, they want to amend the plaint
seeking delivery of possession after demolishing the construction put up
by the Defendants in the Suit Properties. While the Plaintiffs have already
sought for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession of the suit
property, in order to avoid technical difficulties, they have now sought to
include a prayer for a mandatory injunction for removal of the
superstructure constructed / erected in the suit property before delivery of
possession. The proposed amendment does not alter the nature or
character of the Suit.
11. As regards limitation, the prayer for recovery of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
possession implies delivery of vacant possession. It means that the
defendant shall deliver possession of the suit property after removing any
superstructure erected or any permanent changes made. Hence, for the
reason that recovery of possession have been sought prima facie within
limitation period, the amendment sought is also prima facie within the
limitation period.
12. Whether the Suit Property belongs to the Plaintiffs’
predecessor-in-title, whether Defendants 1 to 3 are tenants in the Suit
Property or whether the Defendants have perfected title by adverse
possession or by any other mode are questions that can be decided only at
the time of trial. No prejudice would be caused, if the amendment
Application is allowed. Hence, the Trial Court rightly appreciated the facts
and allowed the Interlocutory Application filed for amendment. It is to be
noted that the trial has not yet commenced. Hence, the amendment sought
is a pre-trial amendment. It is settled law that pre-trial amendments should
be considered in accordance with law in a lenient manner. Considering the
facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Civil Revision
Petition does not have merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. Further, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel
for the Revision Petitioner is not applicable to the present case on hand for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
the reason that in the said judgment, the Plaintiffs therein filed a Suit for
declaration and injunction. During pendency of the said Suit, after five
years from the date of filing of the Advocate Commissioner's report, the
Plaintiffs therein filed an Interlocutory Application to amend the plaint
incorporating the prayer for mandatory injunction to remove the
construction put up in the common land. Facts being such, this Court
concluded that the amendment sought for by the Plaintiffs is barred by
limitation. Here, the Suit is one for declaration and delivery of possession
and the amendment sought for is to include the relief of mandatory
injunction to remove superstructure before delivery of possesion. Hence,
the said Judgment is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
14. Needless to mention that after amendment, the
Defendants are entitled to file additional written statement qua the
amended portion and in such a course, they are entitled to raise all the
pleas available to them including the plea of limitation. The Trial Court
shall consider the same in accordance with law, without being influenced
by any observation made by this Court in any manner, in its final
Judgment after completion of evidence.
15. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06 / 01 / 2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
To
The Additional District Court
Mayiladuthurai.
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN
CRP NO.1435 OF 2023
06 / 01 / 2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/01/2026 07:21:03 pm )
