R.Lakshmi Pavithra Vs P.Ranganatha Reddy and 3 others

father Mr. Narayana Swamy Reddy in Survey Nos.92/3, 93/3/ 35/4, 103/3, 94/3, 103/13, 91/2A, 41/3B1, 174/14B measuring an extent of 3 acres approximately, situated at Kolathur Village, Pallipet Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The applicants 1 and 2 had sent Protest petitions to the Pallipet Sub Registrar and District Registrar of Tiruvallur listing all ancestral properties. Despite receipt of the same, the Registrars allowed the sale of Item II of the Schedule property, Kolathur Mango Garden comprising of 6 acres bearing Survey No.41/3B to one Mr. E. Sreenivasulu and Mrs. Chandrakala through Sale Deed dated 28.09.2022. The applicants apprehended alienation of the ancestral properties by the respondents herein at the time of filing of the Suit and subsequently came to know about the aforestated alienation only after the filing of the Suit. However, as on date, since 3rd party rights have accrued, the 1st and 2nd applicants herein are entitled to receive their respective 1/3rd

¶42

share from the sale consideration as compensation in the event of conclusion Page No.3 of 11

¶43

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

¶44

A. No.3519 of 2025

¶45

in C.S. No.153 of 2023 of this Court that the dealing of the property without consent of applicants

¶46

1 and 2 is incorrect. The respondents also held 1/2 share in the First Floor being 1/4 share in Item 1 of Suit Schedule property. Despite the applicant's protest petitions dated 28.07.2022, the respondents maliciously executed a Settlement Deed dated 09.12.2022 in respect of the property in favour of his brother Mr. Doraisamy. The said facts have already been brought to the knowledge of the Court through the Plaint and also the applicants had sought for relief of the Court to seek declaration against the Settlement Deed dated 09.12.2022 as null and void and another application has been preferred along with the instant petition to receive additional documents. Therefore, in the light of the above said developments, the applicants have preferred the application to amend the Plaint.

¶47

The respondents have filed a counter by denying the averments of Page No.4 of 11

¶48

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

¶49

in

¶50

A. No.3519 of 2025

¶51

C.S. No.153 of 2023 the petition. The Suit itself is not legally maintainable. As far as the Item

¶52

No.I of the Plaint Schedule property is concerned, since the respondents 3 and

¶53

4 are the lawful owners of the ground floor premises with half undivided share in the land as on the date of the above Suit, without even impleading the respondents 3 and 4 in the main Suit, the status quo order was obtained. Due to that order, the proposed development and construction of new individual Flats have come to a standstill resulting in huge financial losses to the respondents. The applicants have no legal right whatsoever in the Item-I of the Suit property after the execution of the Settlement Deed dated 09.12.2022 by the 1st respondent / 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd respondent. The said P. Doraiswamy along with 3rd and 4th respondents are the owners of the entire premises. The documents sought to be received are noway connected to the said property. The Item No.I of the property was jointly purchased by the defendants 1 and 2 in the year 1975. The 1st respondent along with the 2nd respondent have jointly mortgaged the Original Title Deed with South Page No.5 of 11

¶54

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

¶55

A. No.3519 of 2025

¶56

in

¶57

C.S. No.153 of 2023 Indian Bank and the same was subsequently cancelled and discharged on

¶58

21.11.2022. The above said fact is also admitted by the applicant. Now, the applicants have unlawfully inclined to include Survey No.91/2A belonging to the 2nd respondent, which was settled by her mother through Settlement Deed dated 06.08.2015. Therefore, there is no reason for seeking amendment and

¶59

to condone delay in producing the documens filed along with the petition are

¶60

no way relevant to decide the case. Further, the amendment will introduce new cause of action and would alter the nature and character of the Suit and

¶61

therefore, strongly objected to allow this application.Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶62

Heard both sides and perused the entire materials.

¶63

The applicants have filed this application to amend the Plaint for

¶64

amending Paragraph 12, to insert 12a and 12b after Paragraph 12 and also to Page No.6 of 11

¶65

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

¶66

in

¶67

A. No.3519 of 2025

¶68

C.S. No.153 of 2023 amend paragraph 16 in respect of valuation and also to include prayers in

¶69

respect of the declaration of Settlement Deed dated 19.12.2022 and Item VI after Item V. According to the applicants, the main Suit has been filed by the applicants / Plaintiffs for partition. They already pleaded in the Plaint and also filed an application in A. No.4128 of 2023 under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code to grant leave of the Court to seek declaration to declare the Settlement Deed dated 09.12.2022 at relevant point of time and the said petition is pending. Therefore, now they want to include the prayer in respect of the above said Settlement Deed dated 09.12.2022 and further, during the pendency of the Suit, they came to know that the defendants have sold Item-II of the schedule situated at Kolathur Village, Pallipet Taluk, Tiruvallur District measuring an extent of 3 acres and they came to know that another ancestral property registered in the name of the 1st defendant and his late fahter in Kolathur Village, Pallipet Taluk, Tiruvallur District in Survey Nos.92/3, 93/3, 35/4, 103/3, 94/3, 103/13, 91/2A, 41/3B1 and 174/14B and therefore, the said Page No.7 of 11

¶70

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

¶71

A. No.3519 of 2025

¶72

in C.S. No.153 of 2023

¶73

properties have to be included in the Suit.

¶74

Though the respondents have strongly objected to amend the Plaint

¶75

on the ground that the amendment will introduce new cause of action and the properties are not joint family properties and those properties are absolute properties of the respondents, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

¶76

and for effective disposal of the Suit, considering the fact that so far trial has not been commenced and also the applicants have also reserved their right to

¶77

file an application under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure in A. No.4128 of 2023 seeking permission of the Court to raise prayers for declaration in respect of the Settlement Deed within the limitation period and

¶78

the same is also pending and the inclusion of new prayers is within the limitation period, it is appropriate to allow this application and if the application is not allowed, the applicants will be put to irreparable loss and

¶79

hardship and at the same time, by allowing this application, no prejudice Page No.8 of 11

¶80

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

A. No.3519 of 2025

in

C.S. No.153 of 2023

would be caused to the other side.