Dismissed

Mr.Kawarlal v. Mr.Anbarasan

Madras HC20 Feb 2019CRP/1285/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of a plaint amendment. The Court held that while the lower court was justified in dismissing the amendment as it raised a triable issue, the suit itself remains pending on rival title claims and requires disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to dispose of the pending suit within six months; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Mr.Kawarlal Vs Mr.Anbarasan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.02.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.1285 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Mr.Kawarlal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.Anbarasan
Trustee of Kadumbadiamman Koil,
Kadumbadiamman Koil Street,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai -600 087.
2.Mr.Alagarsami
3.Mr.Varadarajan ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 05.07.2012, passed in I.A.No.320 of 2012 in O.S.No.134 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Dilip Kumar

¶9

For Respondents : No appearance

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2009. The said suit was filed against the respondents/defendants for a bare injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property measuring 3192 sq.ft.(7.327 cents).

¶14

2.The respondents/defendants filed their written statement

¶15

and claimed that they perfected their title pursuantto execution of a deed of confirmation of sale vide Registered Document No.5078/2001 dated 07.11.2007.

¶16

3.It was claimed deed of confirmation of sale was executed

¶17

infavour of their vendor and another document in favour of the third respondent vide Registered Document No.6693/19.12.2002 from the predecessor in title on payment consideration.

¶18

4.In the written statement it was further averred that the suit property was owned by the respondent, that they were in possession of the property and that patta was also issued in favour of them by the revenue department.

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

5.The petitioner therefore filed a petition seeking to amend

¶22

the plaint since it was claimed that patta had been granted to the respondents as per the averments.The petitionersought to amend the plaint, by seeking to add paragraph 7-A, 7-B, 8-A, 9-A after three years of the plaint.

¶23

6.However, there is no amendment to the prayer in the relief

¶24

as prayed for in the suit ,though the lower court has observed that there is a prayer to amend the plaint seeking a relief of declaration disputing the title and for the delivery of possession.

¶25

7.The defence raised by the respondent in the written

¶26

statement gives raise to a triable issue before the Court. It does not invite an application to amend the plaint.

¶27

8.Therefore, the lower was justified in dismissing the

¶28

application. The proposed amendment to the pleadings are something which can be decided during trial

¶29

9.I find no merits in the present Civil Revision Petition as the basis of the relief in the suit is the ownership in the property in respect of which the respondents also claims to have perfected their

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

title and obtained patta. These rival claims can be decided only in the Trial . Mere grant of patta by the revenue authorities cannot mean that the respondents have perfected their title.

¶33

10.It is noticed that the suit is of the year 2009 and is pending for 10 years. The lower Court is therefore directed to dispose the suit within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. 11.Accordingly, the Civil Revision is dismissed with above observations. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20.02.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet :Yes/No jen

¶34

¶35

Additional District Munsif Court,

¶36

Poonamallee. http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

¶38

C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
C.R.P.(PD).No.1285 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶39

20.02.2019

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mr.Kawarlal v. Mr.Anbarasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Kawarlal v. Mr.Anbarasan

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

Arunachalam Vs Ponnusamy

T.Srinivasan Vs T.Rangappan

Rajesekaran Vs Venkatesan

Conservation Assistant Vs Ranachandira Ramanuja Dasar.

K.Mohankumar Vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Ashok Kumar Jaini Vs the Madras Kirana Merchants