C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3546 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010. Case: D. Lalitha, Rathinammal and Pushpa Vs Rangasan, The Deputy Registrar and The Sub-Registrar. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberC.R.P. (NPD) No. 3546 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. D. Rajendran, Adv. And For Respondents: Mr. R. Rajarajan, Adv.
JudgesK. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Rule 17
Judgement DateJuly 03, 2013
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)


K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

  1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order made in I.A. No. 12 of 2010 in A.S. No. 22 of 2009 dated 8.9.2010 rejecting the said application seeking for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners as the plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 65 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Cheyyar against the first respondent herein for partition. The petitioners are sisters and the first respondent is their brother. The second and third respondents are official respondents who have been arrayed as formal parties. The plaintiffs pleaded that the suit properties consisting of three items belonged to their mother by name Kannammal, who died 15 years ago leaving behind the plaintiffs and the first defendant as her legal heirs. Therefore, they sought for partition by claiming 1/4th share each in the suit properties. They also specifically pleaded that insofar as the properties that stood in the name of their father by name Appu Naidu are concerned, they were not seeking any share in those properties and they had given up their rights over the said properties left by their late father in favour of the first respondent.

  2. The first respondent filed a written statement and contested the suit. It is his specific plea that item No. 3 of the suit schedule belonged to his father Appu Naidu and after his death he acquired the property over which their mother did not have any right. Insofar as item No. 2 is concerned, it is his contention that his mother Kannammal executed a settlement deed dated 5.9.1959 in his favour and therefore the plaintiffs are not having any right to claim share in the said property.

  3. The trial court after considering the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence let in by both sides, dismissed the suit on 31.8.2009. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein filed first appeal in A.S. No. 22 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvannamalai. During the pendency of the first appeal, the first petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 12 of 2010 seeking for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

  4. It is her contention that at the time of filing the suit, the plaintiffs have instructed their counsel, by inadvertence, as if the suit properties belonged to their mother Kannammal and after her demise all are equally entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit properties. However, only after filing of the first appeal, they came to understand that 2nd item of the property alone belonged to their mother and items 1 and 3 belonged to their father Appu Naidu.

  5. It is further contended that the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs have no share over the properties belonging to their father. Consequently, she sought to amend the plaint to contend that suit items 1 and 3 belonged to their father Appu Naidu and suit Item 2 belonged to their mother Kannammal. She also sought to delete paragraph No. 9 of the original plaint by substituting the averments that the plaintiffs and the first defendant are entitled to 1/4th share in the properties of their father and mother. The said application for amendment was resisted by the first respondent.

  6. The Court below after considering the rival pleadings and after hearing both...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT