Najmunishabegam v. Mohammed Aajam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :16.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and CMP.No.3821 of 2026 1.Najmunishabegam 2.Ajirabi 3.Mohammedmubin 4.Baarjanabegam ... Petitioners vs.

1.Mohammed Aajam 2.Mohammed Najeem 3.Mohammed Nijaam 4.Junath Sulthana 5.Mohammed Nameem 6.Jainap Sulthana 7.Mohammed Ameen 8.Mohammed Aman 9.Anzeem 10.Pirdhosh 11.Mohammed Parvesh 12.Mohammed Ismaiel 13.Mohammed Imthiyash 14.Mohammed Urayaathujama 15.Mohammed Kalkujama 16.Mohammed Khizar 17.Samiulla 18.Jabiulla 19.Rajiulla 20.Pamiulla 21.Pavushiya 22.Reehana Begum 1/6

23.Asma Begum 24.Umme Ani 25.Bashilath 26.Mohammed Abubakkar 27.Ameer 28.Mohammed Ismaiel 29.Chandra Sekar 30.Jothi 31.Vijaya 32.Jamira 33.Shakitha Begum 34.Jabursathik Ali 35.Mukthiyar Baig 36.Samiulla 37.Navash Basha 38.Kurathul Jaan 39.Munavar 40.Saleema 41.Ramappa 42.Mohammed Javeeth 43.Venkatesh 44.Syednathim Agram 45.Nazeer 46.Nagaraj 47.Aslam Basha 48.Raja 49.Yashodamma 50.Nagarajan 51.Rama Moorthy 52.Kathar Baig 53.Harish Kumar 54.Venkattaraju 55.Prema 56.Mujamil Basha 57.Rathnappa 58.Munichandra Aachari 59.Narasimmappa 60.Rajeswari 61.Geetha 2/6

62.Nazeer 63.Ratha 64.Roshiba 65.Anish Ameerkghan 66.Asmath Kghan 67.Javeeth Ali 68.Kaliloorahman 69.Pajlookaan ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.40 of 2017 dated 09.10.2025 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur, and allow the amendment petition. For Petitioners : Mr.S.C.Vishwanth

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint so as to include certain new properties. The petitioners herein filed a suit for partition against the respondents. The trial in the suit has commenced. At present, it is posted for cross-examination of defendant side witnesses. At this stage, the petitioners filed instant application seeking amendment of the plaint to include the properties which were left out in the original plaint. According to the petitioners, the 3/6

properties sought to be included were purchased out of joint family funds available after death of Mohammed Ayup Sahip and also the funds generated by the joint family properties described in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint. The said amendment application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in a suit for partition all the family properties shall be included. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the amendment application may be allowed.

3. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application would indicate that the petitioners claim that the properties sought to be included were purchased out of joint family funds. There is no concept of joint family in Islamic law and therefore, the submissions and averment made by the petitioners that the properties sought to be included were purchased in the name of Khairunnissa Begam by utilising the joint family funds and the funds generated by the joint family properties is not at all acceptable and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. 4/6

4. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16.02.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No ub To The Additional District Judge, Hosur.

5/6

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

ub 16.02.2026 6/6