M.Ganeshkumar,S/O.Meenakshi v. Venkata Subramanian,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 09.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.R.P.(MD)No.1040 of 2016(PD) and C.M.P.(MD).No.5198 of 2016 1.M.GANESHKUMAR ... Petitioner/1st Respondent/ 1st Defendant Vs 1.Venkata Subramanian 2.Thirumalai Vadivu Ammal 3.Murugammal 4.E.Subramanian 5.Devasena 6.Sankara Kumara Priya 7.Esakki Sundaraj 8.Jeyapoorana Kala 9.A.Mani Kailasam 10.Ulaganathan (Died) ... Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiffs 11.Saraswathi 12.Meenakshi Sundaram 13.Bama 14.Prema 15.Backiya Krishna 16.Ramani 17.Bhavani 18.Roshan 19.K.Arumai Kani 20.K.Manimegalai 21.Anitha Gnanaprakasi 22.M.Madasamy 23.P.Valliammal 24.R.Shankaravadivu 25.S.Sivagnanam 26.S.Vellaiammal 27.C.Bhatrakali 28.V.Muthulakshmi 29.M.Parvathy 30.R.Arunachalam 31.N.Lalitha
32.Samuel Rajaiya 33.T.Anandaraj 34.S.Chandra 35.S.Arokiasamy 36.R.Narayanan 37.J.Abraham Paul Ponraj 38.R.Alex Samraj 39.Packiyathammal 40.R.Arunachalam 41.Sankarammal 42.K.Ammaniammal 43.L.Nagarajan 44.S.Sankararamalkingam Narayanan 45.S.Muthuveer Pillai 46.V.Gomathi 47.P.Subbulakshmi 48.A.Murugesan 49.A.Arumugam 50.T.Shankarkumar 51.T.Devapiriyam Roopavathi 52.Mary Kinsleybai 53.Soosai Nadar 54.Kovilpushpam 55.G.Subbulakshmi 56.C.Indra 57.S.Phillipkumar 58.N.Sivakamasundari 59.S.Rathinam 60.S.Prabhu Kanth 61.M.Shankarraj 62.T.Ramar 63.J.Murugan 64.J.Paul Thisai Veeran 65.J.Ganesan 66.V.Muthukumar 67.S.Madan 68.M.Iyyappan 69.Khansiyamkumar 70.S.Jeyaraman 71.David Richard 72.N.Subha 73.S.Kosalai 74.S.Rajeswari 75.S.Mallika ... Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.01.2016 made in I.A.No.177 of 2015 in O.S.No.98 of 2009 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh
ORDER
This revision is directed against the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in I.A.No.177 of 2015 in O.S.No.98 of 2009.
2.The respondents 1 to 10, instituted a suit against the petitioner before the I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli in O.S.No.98 of 2009, for partition and separate possession. The petitioner filed their written statement in which, Paragraph No.9, it is stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of various items of the properties. Subsequently, in the evidence, it was suggested that the suit is bad for non-inclusion of various properties. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.177 of 2015, seeking amendment of the prayer to include some of the properties. Despite objection by the petitioner, the learned District Munsif allowed the application on 27.01.2016. Challenging the above said order, the present revision has been filed.
3.Heard Mr.Ananth C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records. 4.Mr.Ananth C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the amendment application cannot be allowed, since the respondents 1 to 10 have specifically stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to get their share only three items of the suit property. The averments made in the plaint cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment. It is further submitted that the property now included, stands in the name of the school and it is also admitted in Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 5.The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in GAUTAMSARUP V.
LEELA JETLY AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 85 and the another judgment in RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA V. SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 203, in support of his contention. 6.In (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 85, an application was filed to amend the written statement.
"28.What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however,
would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other." 7.Similar view was taken by the subsequent judgment reported in (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 203 (cited supra). 8.In the case on hand, the respondents filed a suit for partition claiming their shares in the suit properties. In the above facts, the plaintiff filed the application to include the properties claiming that they are entitled to get their shares in those properties also. In Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit, it is only stated that the patta was issued in the name of the school in respect of one of the property.
9.It is settled law that patta will not confer title and it was issued only for payment of tax. The decisions relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision.
10.In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. +1 cc to M/s.Ananth C.Rajesh, Advocate in SR.No.29122 NS CSL/ARK-PV/29.06.2016 : 4P/3C C.R.P.(MD)No.1040 of 2016(PD) and C.M.P.(MD).No.5198 of 2016 09.06.2016