M.Rajendran(Died) v. Mookammal

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.02.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR & C.M.P(MD)No.2640 of 2020 1.M.Rajendran(died) 2.M.Thavamani 3.R.Valliyammal 4.R.Prema 5.R.Tamilmani 6.R.Elangovan 7.S.Vasuki ... Petitioners (petitioners 3 to 7 are brought on record as the Lrs of the deceased 1st petitioner vide Court order dated 14.12.2022 made in CMP(MD).No.

11719 of 2022) Vs.

1. Mookammal 2.R. Shanmugavel

3.R.Thangapandi 4.R. Subramanian 5.R.Saravanan 6.R.Manickam 7.R.Ramar 8.M. Thirukkanna Thevar 9.M.Kandasamy Thevar(deceased) 10.R. Radha 11.R. Akilan 12.R. Arunan 13.M. Veerakumar, 14.S. Vilvalingam, 15.T. Balakrishnan, 16.Muthulakshmi 17.Shanmugam, 18.Anbalagan 19.Panchavarnam 20.Shanthi 21.Ramalakshmi 22.The Tahsildar, Kadaladi Taluk, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District. 23.Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Kadaladi Taluk, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.

24.The Sub Registrar Sayalgudi Sub- Registrar Office, Sayalgudi, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

25.Alagammal 26.Gulasekarapandian 27.Malaichamy 28.Thirukkumaran 29.Thirukkannan 30.Murugesan 31.Panchavarnam 32.Ramakrishnan 33.Murugesan 34.Indira Devi 35.Udhaya Sooriyan 36.Velusamy ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.01.2020 made in I.A.No.91 of 2019 in O.S.No.48 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Judge, Paramakudi and to allow the Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Thiagarajan For Respondents : Mr.PT.S.Narendra Vasan for R15 No appearance for R10 and 11

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 07.01.2020 passed in I.A 91 of 2019 in O.S.No. 48 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Paramakudi.

2. The said application was filed seeking amendment of the prayer in the suit by adding an alternative relief of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. The suit was originally filed, seeking declaration of title and now the same is sought to be amended for declaration of title on alternative ground of adverse possession. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial court by going into the merits as to the entitlement of the petitioner to seek declaration of title basing on adverse possession in the context of original plea taken in the plaint, on which the declaration of title was sought for.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously contended that there was no plea in support of the proposed relief of declaration of title based on adverse possession in the entire plaint and

without there being any pleading and only in the prayer part of the suit plaint is sought to be amended, which is of no use. It is also further contented that the suit is of the year 2011 and the petitioner has sought declaration of title by claiming that the suit property originally belonged to their ancestors and also by seeking to set aside such registered documents executed by their ancestors and therefore he was not entitled to seek relief of declaration of title based on adverse possession.

4. All these aspects cannot be considered at this stage, as was done by the learned Trial Court, in the order under revision. All these matters are required to be considered while dealing with the issue of declaration based on the plea of adverse possession. Once the amendment is ordered the petitioners will have an opportunity of filing an additional written statement and whatever pleas that are available for the defendants they are entitled to take all such pleas. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent also required to be considered at the time of disposal of the suit.

5. It is totally inappropriate on the part of the learned Trial Court to go into the merits of the case while dealing with an application filed under Or.6 R.17 of C.P.C. It is settled law that an application filed Or.6 R.17 should be considered liberally in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation etc. In the instant case, the Trial Court ought to have considered the said application liberally and ought to have allowed the said application.

6. In the light of the above and also in lieu of settled legal position that the application for amendment of pleading filed under Or.6 R.17 shall be considered liberally, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment instead of going into the merits of the case to decide the entitlement of the petitioner for such relief basing on the plea of adverse possession.

7. In the light of the above, the order under revision is liable to set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the application in I.A.No.91 of 2019 in O.S.No.48 of 2011 is ordered and the prayer in the suit shall stand amended in terms of I.A.No.91 of 2019. The respondents/

defendants are at liberty to file their additional written statement within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous petition is closed. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2011, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate on or before 30.06.2024.

21.02.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes kpr

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

kpr To The Additional District Judge, Paramakudi 21.02.2024