Attur Selliamman Swamy v. Attur Tuluva Velalar Sangam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 476 of 2024 and CMP.No.2244 of 2024 Attur Selliamman Swamy Rep by its Idol, Temple Chariot Stand and Commercial Buildings Founder Late S.V. Narayana Chettiars Legitimate and fifth generation legal heir A.Raja @ Rajaram, S/o K.Arumugam, 4/1B Samuvel St, Ranipet, Attur, Salem District.

Petitioner Vs

1. Attur Tuluva Velalar Sangam Rep by President V.Sriram, S/o R.Vasanth D.No.100, 101 Thayumanavar St, Attur 636 102 2.Attur Dharmaraja Temple Arulmigu Draupadiyamman Temple, Attur Tuluva Velalar Mahajana Mandra President for Administration A.Kannan S/o Cho. Arunachalam, D.No.73, Thayumanavar St, Attur 636 102 Dr.A.Manickam (Died) R.S. Thirugnanam (Died) G.Ganesan (Died) 3.A.Thangavel 4.V.P.Thiagarajan

5.C.Rajendran 6.S. Palanisamy 7.C.Arumugam 8.A.Rajaram 9.P.Kumaran 10.M.Vadamalai 11.Tamilnadu Government Rep by the District Collector, District Collector Office, Salem 12.The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Attur 636 102 13.The Municipal Commissioner Attur Municipality, Attur 636 102 14.Arulmigu Drowpathiamman Temple Excutive Officer, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment, Department, Inside of Attur Vellai Vinayagar Temple, Attur 636 102 Respondents.

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 28.03.2023 made in IA.No. 2 of 2020 in OS.No. 193 of 2005 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.M.Guruprasad For Respondent(s):

M/s.P.Jagadeesan for R1, R2, R4 to R6 And R8 to R10 M`r.N.Muthuvel for R11 to R13 Government Advocate (CS) Mr.J.Daniel for R14 Government Advocate

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching the suit property and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the encroachment already made in Survey No.541/18A. The suit was resisted by the respondents/ defendants by filing written statement on various grounds. Now, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner seeking inclusion of prayer for declaration of title. The said amendment application was dismissed by the trial court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, in the written statement, raised a plea that the suit for bare injunction filed by the petitioner without prayer for declaration was not maintainable and hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the present application seeking amendment of the plaint for inclusion of the prayer for declaration and the same was erroneously dismissed by the trial court without appreciating the defence set up by the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the prayer for declaration sought to be included by way of amendment was hopelessly barred by limitation and the trial court was justified in dismissing the application refusing amendment.

5. It is seen from the written statement filed by the 10th defendant dated 11.03.2008, a specific plea was raised with regard to the absence of prayer for declaration. The 10th defendant specifically denied the title of the petitioner temple over the suit property and also contested the maintainability of the suit for injunction simplicitor. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff's title over the suit property was denied as early as March 2008. However, the present application for amendment of the plaint to include the prayer for declaration was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff only on 24-11-2020 nearly after 12 years and 8 months. In such circumstances, the inclusion of prayer for declaration is hopelessly barred by limitation on the face of it.

The trial court rightly came to the conclusion that prayer sought to be included is barred by limitation and hence, amendment application could not be allowed. In the light of the facts narrated above, the declaration prayer sought to be introduced by way of amendment is barred by limitation on the face of it and hence, the trial court is justified in dismissing the amendment application on the ground of limitation. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

02-01-2026

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes nr

To

1. The II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2.Tamilnadu Government Rep by the District Collector, District Collector Office, Salem

3. The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Attur 636 102

4. The Municipal Commissioner Attur Municipality, Attur 636 102

S.SOUNTHAR J.

nr CRP No. 476 of 2024 and CMP.No.2244 of 2024 02-01-2026