Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2307 (MAD)

Kasthuri Bai & Another v. Savithri & Others

2007-07-24

S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2007
Judgment :- The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 17. 2006 made in I.A.No:1205 of 2005 in O.S.No:1709 of 1993 by the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, in dismissing the said Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioners, who are plaintiffs in the suit to amend the plaint and the suit reliefs. 2. The suit has been filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in the year 1991 against the first two defendants for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain them from trespassing into the suit property. The defendants have filed their written statement in March 1994 itself. Subsequently, in the year 2001 the plaintiffs have impleaded defendants 3 to 13 as parties to the suit. After several hearings, when the matter was posted for trial on 111. 2005, the present I.A., has been filed to amend the plaint prayer. 3. According to the plaintiffs, they have become the absolute owners of the properties and hence the reliefs have to be amended. It s also stated that the defendants 3 to 33 were the purchasers of the suit property who are in possession of various portions after purchase by them on various dates and therefore the plaintiffs are also entitled to the recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendants. .4. The defendants/respondents contested the said application stating that the application itself is barred by limitation as it is filed 14 years after filing of the suit having knowledge of the title of the defendants in the suit properties after purchase for valuable consideration and are in their respective possession and enjoyment for more than the statutory period. The defendants also stated that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action of the suit and alter the main character of the suit, besides there is no acceptable reason offered by the plaintiffs for the enormous delay of 14 years. 5. Considering the pleadings of the parties and also taking into consideration of the documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.8 and R.1 to R.8 adduced by both the parties, the learned District Munsif, Tambaram, dismissed the application seeking amendment of plaint prayer. Hence this revision. 6. 5. Considering the pleadings of the parties and also taking into consideration of the documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.8 and R.1 to R.8 adduced by both the parties, the learned District Munsif, Tambaram, dismissed the application seeking amendment of plaint prayer. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the suit cannot be proceeded without the amendment being carried out as after the institution of the suit property, the suit property was sold to the defendants 3 to 36 on various dates and therefore the suit for bare injunction would become infructuous. It is also contended by him that since the trial has not yet commenced, the delay would not be a hindrance in allowing the amendment application. 7. Admittedly, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The suit ha been filed in the year 1991 and even according to the plaintiffs, after filing of the suit, the defendants 3 to 36 have purchased various portions of the suit property by different sale deeds on various dates and till date they are in physical possession and enjoyment of their respective portions, and thus their possession is more than the statutory period. The plaintiffs having knowledge of their title and possession remained mute spectators and after 14 years have chosen to file the Interlocutory Application seeking for amendment of the plaint reliefs. .8. Apart from that, the plaintiffs are not able to furnish the correct particulars with regard to the location of each of the respective property owned, possessed and enjoyed on ground by each and every defendant. Further, the plaintiffs have not even adduced any document to claim title in their favour in respect of the suit properties to amend the reliefs from bare injunction to that of declaration of title and for recovery of possession. There is no details forthcoming as to when the defendants occupied the suit properties and constructed superstructures thereon which his vital to decide the amendment application. Apart from that, if the amendment sought for is allowed, it would definitely introduce a new cause of action since the it is even admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendants are in possession of the suit property and therefore seek for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. 9. Apart from that, if the amendment sought for is allowed, it would definitely introduce a new cause of action since the it is even admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendants are in possession of the suit property and therefore seek for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. 9. The decision relied on by the learned counsel in Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu and another, reported in 2003 (2) L.W. 21, the Honble Apex Court held that lapse of 11 years after suit was filed is no reason to disallow the amendment and pre-trial amendments ought to be allowed more liberally. But in the present case, the plaintiffs have not even filed documentary evidence to claim title and also failed to give details of possession by defendants to amend the reliefs into declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Therefore, the above decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. For the same reason, the decision in Pankaja Vs. Yellappa, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4102 also cannot be pressed into service. So also the decision in Usha Balashaheb Swami and others Vs. Kiran Appasao Swami and others reported in 2007 (3) CTC 400, since in the said decision, the Apex Court only dealt with amendment of pleadings in the written statement, which is not the case here. 10. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled to amend the plaint reliefs. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram in dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed for amendment of the suit reliefs. 11. In the result, the CRP is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.