Dismissed

Swamikannu, v. Vethagiri Chettiar

Madras HC10 Jun 2011CRP/1800/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order allowing an amendment to a partition plaint. The High Court rejected claims of prejudice, noting defendants could raise objections during trial. It directed the trial court to specifically frame an issue regarding whether the added properties are self-acquired or ancestral and expedite the proceedings. Consequently,

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the trial court was directed to frame additional issues regarding the nature of the properties and expedite the trial.

Swamikannu, Vs Vethagiri Chettiar — Partition | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 10.06.2011

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Civil Revision Petition (P.D.)No.1800 of 2011

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶7

Swamikannu 2. Raji Chettiar ..Petitioners ..vs..

¶8

Vethagiri Chettiar
2. Venkatcahalam ..Respondents

¶9

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 07.12.2010 made in I.A.No.430 of 2010 in O.S.No.8 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Madurantakam.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Palaniappan ORDER

¶11

Revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 2. This civil revision petition arises out of the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.430 of 2010 in O.S.No.8 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the 3^rd defendant for amendment of plaint has been allowed.

¶12

The 1^st respondent herein/3rd defendant in the suit filed in I.A.No.430 of 2010 to amend the plaint for including the properties described in the affidavit filed in support of the application, stating that in the suit for partition filed by the 2^nd respondent herein/plaintiff, these properties have been omitted to be added. But the said application was opposed by the revision petitioners contending that the properties sought to be added by way of amendment of the plaint is a separate properties of the parties and as such, they are not available for partition. Hence, the petition for amendment has to be dismissed.

¶13

But the court below has allowed the said application holding that the question, whether the properties sought to be added in the schedule of plaint are the individual properties of the parties or joint family properties could be decided only at the time

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

of trial and hence, no prejudice would be caused if the amendment is allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision petition has been filed by defendants 1 and 2.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the properties sought to be added are self acquired properties of the respective parties and they cannot be included in the suit for partition; but this aspect was not properly considered by the trial court.

¶17

In my considered opinion, the revision petitioners can raise all their contentions before the court below during the course of trial. Since the petitioners are having an opportunity to raise all their contentions, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the court below. However, the court below is also directed to give an opportunity to the defendants 1 and 2 to file additional written statement and also to frame additional issue as to whether the suit properties are the self acquired properties or ancestral properties and also permit the parties concerned to adduce evidence on the said issue and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

With the above observation, the civil revision petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.Registrar gl To The Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam. 1 cc to Mr.A.Palaniappan , Advocate, Sr.No.33809 Order in Civil Revision Petition No.1800 of 2011 gv(co) pmk.27.6.2011

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Swamikannu, v. Vethagiri Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swamikannu, v. Vethagiri Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balasubramanian Vs Minor Santhosh

T.Ramasami Vs Kuttakattu Ramasami Gounder

(4+4 Copies of Prt Jt Filed) Vs Periyannan

S.Gopalakrishnan Vs M/S.Vijaya Pitures

Sathiyamurthy Vs R.Pavunambal

Nagarajan Minor Vs M.Sukumar