Allowed

Subba Reddiar, v. P.Stalin Aruldass

Madras HC11 Feb 2015CRP(MD)/1754/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing an amendment in a suit for title and injunction. While upholding the amendment order, the bench vacated specific findings regarding the existence of construction on the property and directed the District Munsif Court to proceed with the trial independently.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing amendment upheld; findings on construction vacated; District Munsif Court directed to proceed with trial independently.

Subba Reddiar, Vs P.Stalin Aruldass — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.02.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

C.R.P.(MD).NO.1754 of 2014

¶7

and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014

¶8

1.Subba Reddiar

¶9

2.Ramaraj ... Revision Petitioners/Respondents

¶10

/ Defendants vs.

¶11

P.Stalin Aruldass ... Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶12

PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 11.07.2014 in I.A.No.562 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For Respondent : Mr.A.Hajamohideen

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners.

¶16

2.The revision is directed against the order of allowing the amendment application in I.A.No.562 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai. The suit was filed originally for declaration of title of the plaintiff and for consequential injunction thereof. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had put up construction on the Western portion of the suit property measuring about 37 ½ ft East-West and about 22 ft North-South. According to the plaintiff despite his objections, the defendants had continued with the said construction. Hence, the petitioner filed an application for amendment seeking relief of mandatory injunction. The said application was resisted by the defendants contending that the property is in his possession and the construction alleged has been raised even before the filing of the suit. The petitioners have suppressed the fact that they were out of possession even on the date of suit and filed the suit only with the hope of getting interim order. It was also contended further that the amendment would change the cause of action and the nature of the suit. The learned Judge, who tried the application allowed the same. While passing of the order in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ I.A.No.562 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 in Paragraph No.8, the learned Judge has stated as follows:

¶17

¶18

"Vbddpy; vjph;kDjhuUk; mtUila vjph;kDt[iuapy; cs;Sh; ngUuhl;rpapy; khh;r; khjj;jpy; tiugl mDkjp bgw;Ws;sjhfj;jhd; brhy;yg;gl;Ls;snj jtpu fl;olk; ,Ug;gjhf ve;jbthU Fwpg;g[k; fhl;lg;glhj epiyapy;. nkw;go gpuhjpy; thjp nfhUk; ghpfhuj;ijg; bghWj;J jpUj;jk; bra;tjw;F mtrpak; Vw;gl;Ls;sjhfnt ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ."

¶19

3.This observation made by the learned Judge, Nilakottai is challenged in this revision. According to the revision petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit even in the written statement they have stated in detail that the suit property is not a vacant land and there is a bore-well in the suit property. The first defendant had put up construction of shops and a residential house, which is almost completed except for some final works. At the time of filing of the plaint, the construction was almost completed and the plaintiff has suppressed the same in his plaint.

¶20

4.The contention of the petitioner is that the finding in the impugned order would affect the suit in the final stage. Though the counsel for the petitioner does not have serious objection for the amendment, seeks to vacate only the said findings. The learned counsel for the respondent has also got no serious objection.

¶21

5.In the result, the order of allowing the amendment by the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai would stand. However, the findings regarding the construction by the defendants are vacated and the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai is directed to proceed with the trial independently without being influenced by any of the findings made in the order in I.A.No.562 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 and dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, Advocate, in SR. No.6335. +1cc to Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, Advocate, in SR. No.6689.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

msm 26.02.2015 p2/4c

Subba Reddiar, v. P.Stalin Aruldass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subba Reddiar, v. P.Stalin Aruldass

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

Sathish Kumar, Vs Subbiah

Suganthi Baby Vs P.Veeranan (Died)

E.Sankaran Vs Ramalakshmi

Mr.K.R.K. Vellaiyan Vs Mr.C.T.S. Chidambaram Chettiar

Annamali Vs Raja Kannappan

R.Kannan Vs T.Kannan