Ganesan v. Palaniammal (Died) 1. R. Jangameswaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.27854 of 2025 1.Ganesan 2.L.Ramachandran ... Petitioners vs.
Palaniammal (Died) 1.R.Jangameswaran 2.Kumarasamy 3.P.Jagadeesan 4.P.Saminathan 5.P.Krishnamurthy 6.P.Manikandan 7.Sivabaghyam 8.Maheswari Chinnal (Died) 1/8
9.Ramasamy Lakshmanan (Died) 10.Murugathal 11.Annakodi 12.Nagarathinam 13.Padmavathi Arumugam (Died) R.Subramaniam (Died) 14.Balan 15.Sivashanmugam Meenakshi (Died) Subbathal (Died) Palaniappan (Died) 16.Ayyappan 17.Jothi Lakshmi (Died) 18.Valliammal 19.V.V.Palanisamy 2/8
20.V.N.Kathirvel 21.Rajammal 22.Senthilkumar 23.Manimegalai 24.Saraswathi @ Mageswari 25.M.Sivanandam 26.M.Giriram 27.Kannammal 28.Rajamani 29.Bagiyalakshmi 30.A.Loganathan 31.A.Ramachandran 32.P.Mani 33.P.Ayyappan 34.P.Puspa ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.15 of 2024 in O.S.No.806 of 1996, dated 03.04.2025 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
3/8
For Petitioners : M/s.R.Pushpalatha for M/s.C.Deivasigamani
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.15 of 2024 in O.S.No.806 of 1996, dated 03.04.2025 allowing the application for amendment filed by the respondents 1 to 8/plaintiff seeking to amend the valuation column of the plaint.
2. The respondents 1 to 8/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of their 1/6th share in respect of Suit 'A' Schedule Property and 1/4th share in respect of Suit 'B' and 'C' Schedule Properties. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the 1st defendant in the suit Chinnal died and therefore, the share of the plaintiffs got increased. Their share got increased to 1/4th in respect of 'A' schedule property and 1/2 in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. The plaintiffs filed necessary amendment application and amended the prayer with regard to the enhanced share. However, by inadvertence, the valuation column of the plaint has not been amended and the same was questioned by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants when PW.1 was examined. 4/8
Immediately, thereafter, the instant application has been filed seeking amendment of the valuation column so as to give correct value of the increased share of the plaintiffs. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants 4 and 26 have come before this Court by way of this revision.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 to 8/plaintiffs failed to amend the valuation column when they filed necessary application to amend the prayer portion of the plaint. Therefore, the present application is belated one and on that ground the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the amendment application.
4. The amendment application has been filed by the plaintiffs based on subsequent event. Due to death of 1st defendant, the share claimed by the plaintiffs got increased. Necessary amendment application has been filed seeking enhancement of share of the plaintiffs in the prayer portion. However, the valuation column of the plaint has not been consequentially amended. In order to amend the valuation column the present application has been filed. When share of the plaintiffs is increased due to subsequent 5/8
change of circumstances, naturally the value of the plaintiffs' share as mentioned in the valuation column will also get increased.
5. The earlier amendment application filed by the plaintiffs to increase share of the plaintiffs was already allowed. In such circumstances, the present application seeking amendment of the valuation column is only clarificatory in nature and it will not introduce any new facts in the plaint. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly appreciated the same and allowed the amendment application. I do not find any error in the order impugned in this civil revision petition in I.A.No.15 of 2024 in O.S.No.806 of 1996, dated 03.04.2025.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No dm 6/8
To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
7/8
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm 12.11.2025 8/8