Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 142 (MAD)

Periyammal v. P. K. Kandasamy and others

2002-02-22

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2002
ORDER: No case is made out by the petitioner herein to interfere with the orders of the Court below. 2. This revision is directed against the order of dismissal by the learned District Munsif, Salem made in I.A.No.702 of 2000 seeking for amendment of the plaint. 3. It was a suit filed by the petitioner herein for the relief of permanent injunction simplicitor that the respondents/ defendants should be restricted from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property. A written statement was filed by the defendants. At that juncture, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking inclusion of the two more reliefs, one to declare the General Power of Attorney deed dated 30.4.1996 under document No.346/96 alleged to be executed by the plaintiff and her children in favour of the 5th defendant as null and void, forged and fabricated, and the second to declare that the sale deed dated 18.9.1997 under document No.2959/97 in favour of the defendants 1 to 4 alleged to be executed by the 5th defendant as General Power of Attorney agent of the plaintiff and her children as null and void and not binding the plaintiff and her title. On enquiry, the lower Court has dismissed the application, which has brought forth this revision. 4. As stated supra, it was the specific case of the petitioner/ plaintiff that she was entitled to the suit property; that she continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same as a title holder, and she sought for the relief of permanent injunction complaining the acts of infringement of the possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit therein. After the written statement was filed, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking for amendment for inclusion of declaratory relief that the Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by her in favour of the 5th defendant was void, and the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the 5th defendant as the Power of Attorney Agent of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants 1 to 4 was also void. Needless to say, the causes of action for these reliefs would certainly be different from one what has already been stated in the original plaint. Needless to say, the causes of action for these reliefs would certainly be different from one what has already been stated in the original plaint. That apart, if the amendment now sought for is allowed, it would definitely change the character and nature of the suit, since the original prayer was one for permanent injunction with the specific causes of action, and now the relief sought for is a declaration in respect of the power of attorney and a sale deed executed following the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the application seeking those reliefs was well filed within the time limit, as prescribed by the Limitation Act, and hence no question of limitation would arise in the case. In view of the abovesaid two reasons that the amendment now sought for would certainly no doubt change the causes of action, and the character of the suit also, the lower Court was perfectly correct in dismissing the application. The Court is unable to see any error or illegality or infirmity in the order of the Court below, and hence the revision has got to be dismissed, sustaining the order of the lower Court. However, liberty is given to the petitioner- plaintiff to file a separate suit for the reliefs now sought for in her amendment application, if so advised. 6. In the result, with the above observation, this civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed.