K.Jamuna v. S.Pushpavathi
Case brief
What is this about?
The court dismissed an application by plaintiffs seeking amendment of a partition plaint to include a prayer for declaring a cancellation deed illegal and claiming a 2/3rd share in the property, holding such a declaration unnecessary for trial.
What did the court decide?
The application for amendment to the plaint was dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
A.No.4408 of 2016
in
Tr.C.S.No.91 of 2004
1.K.Jamuna
2.D.Gunalan
3.D.Dhayalan
4.D.Ravindran
5.D.Anandan ...Plaintiffs
-Vs-
1.S.Pushpavathi (Deceased) ()
represented by her legal Representatives)
2.Karunakaran ()
3.D.Malathi ()
4.S.Sakthivel () ..Defendants
(Defendants 2 to 4 impleaded as per order of court (*)
dated 05.10.2010 made in Appln.No.4200 of 2009.
A.No.4408 of 2016
1.K.Jamuna No.7/10B, Viswanathan Koil Street, Bhat Road, Chennai 600 016.
2
2.D.Gunalan No.79/1, Plot No.B Ramachandra Nagar Madhanadapuram, Porur-600 116.
3.D.Dayalan
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs are allowed to amend the plaint to include a prayer for declaring the cancellation deed illegal and their entitlement to 2/3rd share of the property.
Whether the prayer for declaration regarding the invalidity of the cancellation deed is necessary in a partition suit.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K.Jamuna and Others
- respondent
S.Pushpavathi (Deceased) represented by Legal Representatives and Others
Coram
R.Subramanian
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court