C.R.P.(PD) No. 335 of 2016 and C.M.P. Nos. 1778 and 1779 of 2016. Case: M. Balu Vs Adhikesavalu and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberC.R.P.(PD) No. 335 of 2016 and C.M.P. Nos. 1778 and 1779 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: K.P. Gnanasekaran, Adv. and For Respondents: P. Sathish Kumar, Adv.
JudgesM. Duraiswamy, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VI Rule 17
Judgement DateMarch 22, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)


M. Duraiswamy, J.

  1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A. No. 72 of 2013 in O.S. No. 283 of 2008 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

  2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 283 of 2008 for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The defendant filed his written statement and is contesting the suit. Subsequently, the defendant also filed an additional written statement.

  3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A. No. 72 of 2013 under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint.

    3.1 The plaintiffs have stated that originally the patta was granted in the name of Varadharajulu for the suit property in S. No. 684/11. The said Varadharajulu is the father of the first plaintiff. Based on the patta in the name of the first plaintiff's father, the suit was filed in respect of S. No. 684/11. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, under the Right to Information Act, to furnish the correlation record in respect of old S. No. 111. The Deputy Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, by his letter dated 05.11.2012, informed the plaintiffs' counsel that the old S. No. 111 has been subdivided as S. Nos. 684/1A and 684/1B. The S. No. 684/1A has been further subdivided as S. No. 684/1 and S. Nos. 684/3 to 684/11. The S. No. 684/1B has not been further subdivided and patta was granted in the name of Adhilakshmi Ammal. From the said Adhilakshmi Ammal, Varadarajulu has purchased the suit property.

    3.2 According to the plaintiffs, patta for S. No. 684/11 was wrongly issued in the name of Varadarajulu. Patta for S. No. 684/11 was already granted in the name of one V. Gopalakrishnan. Now, the patta was granted in the name of Varadarajulu for S. No. 684/1B. According to the plaintiffs, there is no change in the extent and the mistake was committed by the Revenue officials. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs sought for amendment of the New S. No. 684/11 by deleting it.

  4. The defendant filed his counter stating that the present application has been filed after the commencement of the trial and that the entire evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was proceeded as per the earlier pleadings. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected. Further, the defendant has stated that he has obtained particulars of the subject matter of the property and also subdivision details from the Tahsildar...

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