JUDGMENT :- 1. The Petitioners are the Defendants 3 to 9 in O.S. No. 18 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram. The First Respondent is the Plaintiff and the Respondents 2 and 3 are the Defendants 1 and 2 in the said Suit. 2. The Plaintiff is an Ashram. The Plaintiff claims that it owns the landed property comprised in S.No. 165/2 at Rajakilpakkam village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District measuring 5.02 cents. One. Mr.R.P. Lawrie was the founder President of the Ashram. He had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the First Defendant on 17.10.1973. Exercising his power under the said document, the First Defendant subsequently, executed two Sale Deeds [Document Nos. 1705 of 1983 and 1704 of 1983] on 06.5.1983 and 9.5.1983 respectively thereby, selling the above said property to one Mr. Nataraja Iyer and the Second Defendant herein. An extent of two acres was sold to Mr. Nataraja Iyer and the remaining extent was sold to the Second Defendant. Mr. Lawrie died on 24.2.1989 3. It appears that the First Defendant sold away a portion of the property purchased by her to the legal representatives of Mr. Nataraja Iyer. Mr. Nataraja Iyer also passed away. Admittedly, the Defendants 3 to 9 are the legal representatives of Mr. Nataraja Iyer. Thus, according to the Defendants 3 to 9, the entire extent of the above said land is in the possession and enjoyment of them. 4. While so, the said land was sought to be taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act. A Notification was issued in this regard by the Competent Authority which culminated in a final order dated 09.03.1990 by proceedings in Rc.2948/86C dated 09.03.1990, under which the land in question and other lands were declared as surplus and they were acquired in favour of the Government under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act. 5. The order of the Competent Authority dated 09.03.1990 was challenged by the Defendants 3 to 9 by way of an Appeal before the Commissioner as per the provisions of the Act on the ground that the lands were all agricultural lands and therefore, they would not fall within the ambit of the Act. 5. The order of the Competent Authority dated 09.03.1990 was challenged by the Defendants 3 to 9 by way of an Appeal before the Commissioner as per the provisions of the Act on the ground that the lands were all agricultural lands and therefore, they would not fall within the ambit of the Act. The said contention of the Defendants 3 to 9 was accepted by the Appellate Authority and accordingly the Appellate Authority passed an order on 17.06.1998 thereby setting aside the order of the Competent Authority dated 09.03.1990. 6. Thereafter, the First Respondent herein/Plaintiff filed W.P.No. 17839 of 1999 before this Court seeking to set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 17.06.1998. That Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 05.11.1999. As against the same, the Plaintiff herein filed an Appeal in W.A. No. 2301 of 1999, which came to be dismissed on 11.1.2000 7. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the present Suit in O.S. No.18 of 2000 with the following prayer: (a) for declaration declaring that no right, title and interest is conveyed under Doct. No. 1705/83 dated 6.5.1983; (b) for declaration, declaring that no right, title and interest is conveyed under Doct. No. 1704/83 dated 9.5.1983; (c) costs of the Suit; and (d) grant such further or other reliefs as Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 8. In the Plaint, it is averred that the Sale Deeds in question were executed without the consent of the Plaintiff by the Power of Attorney. To be precise, in paragraph 24 of the Plaint, it is states as follows: “The Plaintiff submits that since the sale as effected by the Power of Attorney, the First Defendant herein is not ratified, the Plaintiff need not seek a declaration that the Sale Deed is null and void, since the Sale Deed itself is not valid one, in view of the failure to seek ratification from the Ashram for whose behalf the property is held in trust and the Defendants 8 and 9 are added to have effective decree, who are subsequent purchaser and Defendants 3 to 7 are also added since they are subsequent purchaser and also being the legal representatives of the Late Natargja Iyer, who is the original as well as subsequent purchaser from the second Defendant as parties, so that any decree that may be made will bind upon them. The Defendants 10 and 11 are all necessary parties in order to get a effective decree and they are all added as parties to the Suit.” 9. The Seventh Defendant filed a Written Statement opposing the Suit and the same was adopted by the other Defendants. According to them, the Sale Deeds are valid. Thereafter, the Palaintiff filed I.A. No.324 of 2004 before the learned District Munsif seeking to amend the Plaint. The amendments sought for are as follows : “(i) In paragraph-29, sub-clause ‘(a)’ to be amended as follows: to declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and consequently to declare the Sale Deeds dated 6.5.1983 and 9.5.1983 by document Nos. 1704 of 1982 and 1805 of 1983 as null and void. (ii) To grant permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, from in anyway interfering into the Plaint schedule property and put up any construction thereon.” 10. The 6th Defendant filed a Counter in the said Interlocutory Application and the same was adopted by the rest of the Defendants. Having considered the above, the learned District Munsif by order dated 13.4.2005 allowed I.A. No.324 of 2004 thereby permitting the Plaintiff to amend the Plaint. Aggrieved over the same, the Defendants 3 to 9 are before this Court with this Petition. 11. I have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. Viduthalai appearing for the Petitioners/ Defendants 3 to 9 and the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent Ashram. There is no representation for Respondents 2 and 3 in this Revision. I have also perused the records carefully. 12. Reiterating the grounds raised in the Revision Petition, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would mainly make the following submissions: “(i) the amendments sought for by the Plaintiff change the very basic character and nature of the Suit; (ii) the amendment, if allowed, will result in the prayer for a relief which is otherwise barred by limitation; (iii) One of the amendments sought for is for declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, whereas, according to the Plaint, there is no such schedule of property at all.” 13. For these reasons, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order of the learned District Munsif requires interference at the hands of this Court. 14. For these reasons, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order of the learned District Munsif requires interference at the hands of this Court. 14. The learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent /Plaintiff would vehemently oppose this Revision. He makes the following submissions: (i) the character and nature of the Suit is not attempted to be in any manner changed by the amendments which are sought to be made by the Plaintiff. The original prayer made in the Plaint itself includes the prayer for declaration of title in favour of the Plaintiff and therefore, the proposed amendments do not change the character of the Suit. (ii) the question whether the amended prayer would be barred by limitation or not cannot be gone into in this Revision as the scope of the Amendment Petition is very limited to the extent only to se whether the amendments change the very character and nature of the Suit and whether any prejudice would be caused to the Defendant by such amendments; (iii) the prayer for injunction is only consequential and therefore, by introduction of such a prayer, there is no change effected in the nature and character of the Suit. 15. The learned Counsel on either side have taken me through the records elaborately and they have also cited number of judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court as well as this Court about which I would make a reference at the appropriate stages of this order. 16. At the outset, I have to state that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, for any reason if the amendments are allowed, the same would only result in a futile exercise, for there is no property described in the suit schedule as required under Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure at all. 17. Though the prayer as per the proposed amendment, is for declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction in respect of suit schedule properties, there is no such property described at all in the Plaint. This was not noticed by the learned District Munsif while passing the impugned order. Therefore, even if the amendment is allowed, such amended prayer will be of no consequence and thus, the trial of the Suit will result only in futility. 18. This was not noticed by the learned District Munsif while passing the impugned order. Therefore, even if the amendment is allowed, such amended prayer will be of no consequence and thus, the trial of the Suit will result only in futility. 18. Now coming to the next question regarding the character and nature of the Suit, no where in the Plaint there is any averment that the Plaintiff has been in possession of the properties which are the subject matters of the Sale Deeds in question. There is no prayer for injunction to protect the alleged possession of the Plaintiff also. But by means of amendment, such prayer is sought to be introduced. This surely changes the character of the Suit. This also has not been properly taken note of by the learned District Munsif. 19. In respect of the main prayer, as already stated, as per the original Plaint, it was for declaration that the Sale Deeds in question have not conveyed any title, interest, etc, in respect of the lands mentioned in the documents. But now, a declaration for title for property is sought to be made. In my considered opinion, this again changes the character of the Suit. The declaration that a document which is null and void cannot be equated to the declaration of title in respect of the properties relating to the said document. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the amendment sought to be made by the Plaintiff changes the nature and character of the Suit. 20. Nextly, let us, now, consider the objection regarding the limitation. According to the plaint averments, the last cause of action for filing the Suit was on 09.03.1990, when the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act determined the excess land and on 24.04.1990 when the final statement under Section 10 (1) of the Act was issued. Now, there is no fresh averment sought to be introduced by means of amendment and consequently, there is no fresh cause of action introduced in the Plaint. As provided in Article 58 of the Limitation Act to obtain any declaration regarding title, the period of limitation is only three years from the date on which the right or sue first accrued. In this case, the right to sue, even according to Plaint, accrued on 24.04.1990. The Suit was filed in the year 2000. As provided in Article 58 of the Limitation Act to obtain any declaration regarding title, the period of limitation is only three years from the date on which the right or sue first accrued. In this case, the right to sue, even according to Plaint, accrued on 24.04.1990. The Suit was filed in the year 2000. In paragraph 16 of the Written statement, a specific plea was taken by the Defendants that the Suit is barred by limitation. Now, according to the learned Senior Counsel, in order to over come the said objection regarding limitation, the present amendment is sought to be made. In my considered opinion and as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners the prayer, now sought to be introduced, is again barred by the limitation as provided in Article 58 of the Limitation Act as the same is beyond the period of three years from 24.04.1990. In such view of the matter, the amendment it cannot be allowed to be made. In this regard, I may refer to the judgments relied on by the learned counsel on either side. 21. (i) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the honorable supreme court in K.Raheja Constructions Ltd., V. Alliance Ministries & Others, 1996 (I) CTC 178, wherein while considering the question of limitation together with question of amending the Plaint , the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 4 has held as follows: “It is seen that the permission for alienation is not a condition precedent to file the Suit for specific Performance. The decree of specific performance will always be subject to the condition to the grant of the permission by the Competent Authority. The Petitioners having expressly admitted that the Respondents have refused to abide by the terms of the contract, they should have asked for the relief for specific performance in the original Suit itself. The decree of specific performance will always be subject to the condition to the grant of the permission by the Competent Authority. The Petitioners having expressly admitted that the Respondents have refused to abide by the terms of the contract, they should have asked for the relief for specific performance in the original Suit itself. Having allowed the period of seven years elapsed from the date of filing of the Suit, and the period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, any amendment on the grounds set out, would defeat the valuable right to limitation accrued to the Respondent.” (ii) The learned Senior counsel relied on yet another Judgment of this court in Rameeza Beevi and others v. S. Mohammed Ibrahim, 2005 (5) CTC 619 , wherein after having elaborately considered the above question of amendment in the context of limitation, the learned Single Judge in paragraph 29 has held as follows: “In the case involved in the above decision, an amendment was sought for almost after 11 years, after the date of institution of the Suit, for declaration of title and possession. The Apex Court has held, on the date of filing the amendment, the Plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new Suit, seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the Plaint, seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. The Apex Court has held, on the date of filing the amendment, the Plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new Suit, seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the Plaint, seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. Therefore, the Apex Court held, the merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment and gave a protection to the Defendant also…..” (iii) The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner then made reliance on the recent Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers V.Narayanswamy and Sons and others, 2009 (10) SCC 84 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court after having made a thorough survey of various earlier judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court has summed up factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with Applications for amendments in paragraph 63 of the Judgment which reads as follows: “on critically analyzing both the English and Indian Cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the Application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the Application for amendment is bonafide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in term of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh Suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of Application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with Application filed under Order 6, Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” From the above Judgments, one can understand without any doubt that in the event the prayer which is sought to be introduced by means of amendment is clearly barred by limitation, then such amendment cannot be allowed at all. 22. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” From the above Judgments, one can understand without any doubt that in the event the prayer which is sought to be introduced by means of amendment is clearly barred by limitation, then such amendment cannot be allowed at all. 22. The learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent would submit that the question of limitation can be gone into only at the time of trial of the Suit and it is impermissible for this Court to consider as to whether the amended prayer would be barred by limitation or not while considering the Petition for amendment. 23. (i) The learned Counsel placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Hi. Sheet Industries V. Litelon Limited, 2006 (5) CTC 609 . In that case, in paragraph 6 of the Judgment, the Full Bench has observed as follows: “ Thus, the oldest golden case law and the latest modern case law by interpreting the law clearly says and clarifies that the settled position is that amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of proceedings, provided it is necessary for the purpose of deciding the controversies between the parties. They further clarified that even if such an amendment is barred by time, that factor is to be taken into consideration in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be allowed or not and when it does not affect the cause of action and when there is no serious prejudice caused to the opposite party and when such amendment is required to do justice, the Court has wide discretionary power to allow such amendment.” (ii) Nextly the learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Thiru Alankadu Immudid Ahora Dharma Sivachariar Aiyra Vaisya Madam v. Udumalpet Samayapuram Ayira Vaisya Sangam, 2006 (1) LW 153 , wherein this Court in paragraph 11 and 12 has held as follows: 11. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner /Plaintiff that Entry 58 would not apply to the present facts of the case and that the case would fall under Entry 64 or 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which provides for a limitation of twelve years 12. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner /Plaintiff that Entry 58 would not apply to the present facts of the case and that the case would fall under Entry 64 or 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which provides for a limitation of twelve years 12. Thus, it is clear that there is a dispute with reference to the applicability of the Entry, which provides for a limitation within three years.” (iii) The learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of this Court in C.V. Rambabu V. V.C. Jayanthi, 2009 (2) MLJ 893 , Thiraviyam V. Mukkayee, 2009 (5) LW 707 , Chinnammal & another V. Manickam @ Sellappan and 4 others, 2007 (3) LW 533 ; Church of South India Trust Association V. Kovil Pillai, 2007 (5) CTC 595 ; and the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Usha Devi V. Rijwan Ahamd and other, 2008 (3) SCC 717 and the Judgment of this Court rendered by me in S. Chellathurai V. Chidambaram Chettiar and another, 2007 (4) CTC 128 to substantiate his contention that while considering the requests for amending the Plaint, the question of limitation should not be gone into as the same should be gone into only at the time of Trial of the Suit. 24. I have carefully gone through all the above judgments. In these judgments, this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court have clearly held that the jurisdiction to allow or not to allow the amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on the judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, the same should be allowed. But at the same time, if the relief which is sought to be introduced is barred by limitation, the amendment should not be allowed. 25. A perusal of some of the Judgments would further go to slow that in those cases, there were disputes between the parties as to whether the amended prayer would be barred by limitation or not. When such disputes are there, it is not permissible for the Courts to resolve the said disputes at the interlocutory stage, as the said dispute regarding the question of limitation needs to be resolve only at the time of trial of the Suit. When such disputes are there, it is not permissible for the Courts to resolve the said disputes at the interlocutory stage, as the said dispute regarding the question of limitation needs to be resolve only at the time of trial of the Suit. But in case, where absolutely there is no dispute regarding the period of limitation, then there will be no purpose in permitting the amendment since allowing the Suit to be continued for a time barred relief will only be a waste of judicial time of the Court. 26. Now, coming to the facts of the case, as it has been rightly pointed out by the earned Counsel for the Respondents, it is not for this Court to go in to the questions of fact referred to by the Counsel for the Petitioner as they are disputed questions of fact. For example, it is contented by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that after the order of the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, Possession was handed over to the Petitioners whereas according to the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, though the possession of these lands were taken over only from the Church, the Government did not hand over the possession of the properties to the First Respondent after the said Act was repealed. This question being a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in this Petition because the scope of this Revision is very limited. Therefore, all the disputed questions of fact raised in this Revision are left open for the parties to agitate in the main Suit. 27. In conclusion, a perusal of the order of the learned Distirct Munsif would go to show that the learned District Munsif has not considered all these aspects discussed above at all. Therefore, the order of the District Munsif requires interference at the hands of this Court. 28. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned District Munsif is set aside. Having regard to the fact that the Suit has been pending from the year 2000, the learned District Munsif is directed to expedite the trial of the Suit. 28. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned District Munsif is set aside. Having regard to the fact that the Suit has been pending from the year 2000, the learned District Munsif is directed to expedite the trial of the Suit. It is mad clear that while deciding the issues involved in the Suit, the learned District Munsif shall decide the same independently on the basis of the evidence to be let in, without getting influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.