Allowed

Kandasamy v. Xavier

Madras HC29 Nov 2024CRP(MD)/418/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order permitting a second amendment of plaint. The Court held the amendment altered the suit's character by changing property identification post-written statement and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order permitting amendment allowed on second time is set aside; Civil Revision Petition allowed; trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within six months.

Kandasamy Vs Xavier — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 29.11.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶5

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.418 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)No.2297 of 2021

¶6

1.Kandasamy 2.Palaniappan

... Petitioners

-vs.-

Xavier

...Respondent

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 22.06.2020 made in I.A.No.274 of 2019 in O.S.No.84 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Thriuvadanai and to set aside the same.

¶12

For Petitioners :No Appearance For Respondent :Mr.M.Arjun Varman for Mr.S.Rajasekar *****

¶13

________________ Page 1 of 6_

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Thriuvadanai, made in I.A.No.274 of 2019 in O.S.No.84 of 2012, dated 22.06.2020.

¶17

2.The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.84 of 2012. The

¶18

suit was filed for declaration and for other reliefs. In the suit, the respondent/plaintiff contended as follows:

¶19

“jhth nrhj;J Mjpapy; fPo;gidA+u; fpuhkj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; Rg;gpukzpad; mtu;fs; kidtp fhQ;rdhtpd; jha;topg; ghj;jpakhdJk;> fPo;gidA+u; fpuhkj;ijr; Nru;e;j Kj;Juhkypq;fj;jpd; kidtp rrpf;F ghl;b topg; ghj;jpakhd nrhj;jhFk;. Nkw;gb fhQ;rdhtpd; jhaUk;> rrpapd; ghl;bAk; jhth nrhj;ij mDgtk; nra;J te;J mtu; ,we;j gpwF jhth nrhj;ij Nkw;gb fhQ;rdhTk;> rrpAk; thupR fpuk mbg;gilapy; mile;J jhth nrhj;ij mDgtk; nra;J te;jhu;fs;.”

¶20

3.The petitioners/defendants in their written statement contending that

¶21

the property belongs to one Alamelu Ammal through whom, they purchased the same and contended as follows:

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

“fPo;g;gidA+u; fpuhkj;ijr; Nru;e;j Kj;Juhkypq;fj;jpd; kidtp rrpf;F ghl;b topg; ghj;jpakhd nrhj;jhFk; vd;gJ jtW. Nkw;gb fhQ;rdhtpd; jhahUk;> rrpapd; ghl;bAk; jhthr; nrhj;ij mDgtk; nra;J te;jhu;fs; vd;gJ rupay;y. jhth nrhj;ij myNkY mk;khs; vd;gtu; mDgtpj;J te;jhu;. rrpapd; ghl;b ngaUk; fhQ;rdhtpd; jhahu; ngaUk; kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. rrpapd; ghl;b ,we;j gpwF fhQ;rdhTk; rrpAk; mDgtpj;J te;jhu;fs; vd;gJ jtW. rrpNah fhQ;rdhNth nrhj;Jf;F thupR vd;gJ jtW> rrpf;Fk; fhQ;rdhtpw;Fk; cs;s cwT Kiw Ntz;Lnkd;Nw kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. rrpapd; ghl;b ngau; myNkY mk;khs; vd;Nwh> fhQ;rdhypd; jhahu; ngau; myNkY mk;khs; vd;Nwh thjpapd; fl;rpNa fpilahJ.”

¶25

4.Pursuant to the filing of the written statement, the respondent/plaintiff

¶26

filed an application to amend the plaint. The trial Court had given a finding that by allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint for the second time will not cause any damage or alter the character of the suit.

¶27

Accordingly, the trial Court has allowed the application to amend the plaint. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants.

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

6.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondent.

¶31

7.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs has already filed an application to amend the plaint and the same was also allowed and that filing of the application to amend the plaint for the second time is not maintainable. He further submitted that the trial Court ought not to have entertained the application for amending the plaint during cross examination.

¶32

6.Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff cannot shift his stand from identifying his property from a set of people after the written statement filed by the defendants that the defendants had purchased the property from the husband of Alamelu Ammal, which is nothing but to change the entire character of the suit. This vital change was not noticed by the trial Court, as it is a matter of fact that it is case of the defendants that they had purchased the property the husband Alamelu Ammal.

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

7.In view of the same, the order passed by the learned District Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Thriuvadanai, made in I.A.No.274 of 2019 in O.S.No.84 of 2012, dated 22.06.2020, is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2012, the trial Court is directed to conclude the entire proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

29.11.2024 Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No

¶37

¶38

The District Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Thriuvadanai.

¶39

________________ Page 5 of 6_

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶42

cmr

¶43

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.418 of 2021

¶44

29.11.2024

¶45

________________ Page 6 of 6_

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Kandasamy v. Xavier

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandasamy v. Xavier

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rajammal Vs S.Syamali

N.Parasmal Vs C.Thiruppathi

R.Lalithadevi, Vs M.Vivek

Pushpam Vs Selvam

Ganapathi(Died) Vs Arumugam (Died) (1) Raman

Raju @ Esakki Raja Vs Marilakshmi