Arulmigu Kasiviswanathar Thirukoil Vs P.N.Poonusamy Mudaliar (Decd.) Kumari Baby Alias Thilakavathi (Decd) 1.DEVAKI Ammal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Arulmigu Kasiviswanathar Thirukoil Vs P.N.Poonusamy Mudaliar (Decd.) Kumari Baby Alias Thilakavathi (Decd) 1.DEVAKI Ammal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Amendment of the relief clauses of the plaint as prayed for permitted (including defendants 10 to 13 and deleting defendants 1 to 4 in paragraph No.23, and defendants 1 and 2 in paragraphs 23(b) and (c)); amendment to be carried out by learned counsel for the plaintiff within two weeks of the order dated 06.08.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the relief sought in the plaint of C.S.No.658 of 2012 should be amended to substitute the legal representatives (defendants 10 to 13) of the deceased defendants in place of defendants 1 to 4, so that any decree passed binds those in possession of the suit schedule property.

Court's answer

The amendment application A.No.2806 of 2025 stands allowed, taking into consideration the necessity for the amendment and after hearing the learned counsel for defendants 10, 12 and 13.

Ratio / Principle

Formal defects in the plaint are imperative to be removed before final adjudication of the relief sought in the plaint, even at the stage where trial is completed and the suit is listed for arguments.

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to carry out the necessary amendment as prayed for in the application within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, C.V. Karthikeyan, J., order dated 06.08.2025 in A.No.2806 of 2025 in C.S.No.658 of 2012: Allowed an application to amend the relief sought in the plaint of a suit for delivery of vacant possession, declaration of absolute ownership, mandatory injunction (removal of superstructure built by defendants 1 to 4) and permanent injunction (against encumbrance). The amendment sought inclusion of defendants 10, 11, 12 and 13 (legal representatives of the deceased 1st and 2nd defendants, brought on record pending the suit, with defendant 11 set exparte) and deletion of defendants 1 to 4 in paragraph No.23 and defendants 1 and 2 in paragraphs 23(b) and (c); the plaintiff's counsel urged that any decree could otherwise not be executed against the dead persons. Although trial procedure was complete and the suit stood listed for arguments, the Court held it imperative that formal defects in the plaint be removed before final adjudication of the relief sought, allowed the application, and directed the plaintiff's counsel to carry out the amendment as prayed for within two weeks.

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

A.No.2806 of 2025 in C.S.No.658 of 2012

This application has been filed to amend the relief sought in the plaint

by including the defendants 10, 11, 12 and 13 and deleting defendants 1 to 4 in paragraph No.23 and defendants 1 and 2 in the relief at Paragraph No.23 (b) and (c) of the plaint. The necessity to file this particular amendment petition had arisen owing to the fact that the 1^st , 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th defendants are reported dead. The suit had been filed seeking delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land in the suit schedule property and for a further mandatory injunction directing the 1^st and 2^nd defendants to remove the superstructure constructed by the 1^st to 4^th defendants and to deliver vacant possession and for permanent injunction restraining the 1^st and 2^nd defendants from creating any encumbrance over the said property.

2.Pending the suit, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants died. Their legal representatives had been brought on record as defendants 10 to 13. While bringing them on record notices had been directed and counsel had entered appearance on behalf of 10, 12, 13 defendants and the 11^th had been set exparte.

3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff that this amendment is required as a consequent to the death of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants, since, even if a decree is passed, it could not be executed against the

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

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

smv

dead persons and therefore, the legal representatives who are in possession of the

suit schedule property should be made bound to any decree, if passed by the Court.

4.It is to be noted that the trial procedure had been completed and the suit is now listed under the caption for arguments. It is imperative that formal defects in the plaint are removed before final adjudication of the relief sought in the plaint.

5.Taking that view into consideration and also hearing the learned counsel for the defendants 10, 12 and 13, this application stands allowed.

6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff to carry out necessary

amendment as prayed for in the application within a period of two weeks from this date.

06.08.2025

smv

A.No.2806 of 2025 in C.S.No.658 of 2012

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