The High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petitions challenging the Trial Court's refusal to allow amendment of plaint and impleadment of new parties in a suit for partition. The petitioners, having pleaded an earlier 1980 partition, were barred from subsequently claiming joint family funds for purchases made after that date.
None
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.Nos.1769 and 1824 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P. Nos.1769 and 1824 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.13660 of 2021
in both CRPs.
vs.
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned II Additional District Judge, Poonamalllee dated 14.02.2019 in I.A. Nos.238 and 242 of 2018 respectively in O.S. No.125 of 2015.
1/6
C.R.P.Nos.1769 and 1824 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Vijay [both C.R.Ps.] For Respondents : Mr. S.S. Rajesh [for R1] [both C.R.P.s] R3 and R6 to R13 – Not served - No appearance R2, R4 and R5 – Not ready in notice
O R D E R
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order passed
by the Trial Court dismissing the petitions filed by the revision petitioners seeking impleadment of respondents 11 to 13 and also seeking amendment of plaint respectively.
petitioners and the respondents 2 to 10. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners / defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that already there was a partition in the family in the year 1980 and hence the present Suit for Partition filed by the 1st respondent was not maintainable. It was specifically claimed by the petitioners that in the family partition in the year 1980, the properties were allotted to parties and from then onwards, they have been living separately with separate business. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an
2/6
C.R.P.Nos.1769 and 1824 of 2021
interlocutory application in I.A No.238 of 2018 for impleading Respondents 11 to 13 and interlocutory application in I.A. No.242 of 2018 for amendment
of the plaint to include certain properties in the plaint schedule. The said applications were dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
adopted by the 1st petitioner, it was specifically pleaded by the petitioners that
3/6
C.R.P.Nos.1769 and 1824 of 2021
in the year 1980, there was an oral partition in the family and the family properties were partitioned and allotted to sharers. Therefore, the Suit filed
by the 1st respondent for partition was not maintainable in view of the earlier oral partition.
respectively. Therefore, the purchase made in the name of the proposed parties namely R11 to R13 had taken place subsequent to the alleged partition as pleaded by the petitioners. Having made a specific plea in the written statement that there was a family partition in the year 1980, it is not open to the petitioners to say that even after the partition, there was joint family fund and subsequent purchase was made out of the joint family funds. The plea based on which the amendment as well as the impleading are sought for is against the original plea made by the petitioners in their written statement. The petitioners are not entitled to seek amendment of the plaint as well as the
4/6
C.R.P.Nos.1769 and 1824 of 2021
impleading of the parties by raising a new plea, which is mutually destructive of their original plea in the plaint. In such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly disallowed the petitions filed by the petitioners and I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06 .03.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mjs
To
The Principal District Munsif, Perambalur .
5/6
C.R.P.Nos.1769 and 1824 of 2021
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
mjs
C.R.P.Nos.1769 and 1824 of 2021
06.03.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to amend the plaint and implead respondents 11 to 13 by raising a plea mutually destructive of their original defense of earlier family partition?
Whether the Trial Court correctly dismissed the interlocutory applications for impleadment and amendment of plaint?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Kamalabai W/o. Bawarlal Jain
P. Mahendira Kumar S/o. Bawarlal Jain
Prakash S/o. Sohanaraj Kawad
Harash Kumari W/o. Sharbat
Lalitha Kumari W/o. Gyanchand
Remila Kumari W/o. Suresh
S.SOUNTHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
