CRP/4412/2023 of RAJAGOPAL Vs VENKATESAN on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, in I.A.No.215 of 2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2015.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. They instituted the suit seeking a declaration that Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties belong to them and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

3. The case of the petitioners is that their father, Kandasamy, purchased the suit schedule properties along with other properties on 06.03.1978. Subsequently, an oral partition took place among the family members of Kandasamy, pursuant to which Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was allotted to the first petitioner and Item No.2 was allotted to the second petitioner. The remaining properties were allotted to the other legal heirs of Kandasamy. Pursuant to the said partition, the petitioners took possession of their respective portions and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondent, who is a third party to the family, requested the petitioners to sell the properties to him. Since the petitioners refused to do so,

CRP No. 4412 of 2023

the respondent allegedly obtained patta illegally and started interfering with their possession. Hence, the petitioners instituted the suit.

4. The respondent filed a written statement contending that he had purchased an extent of 0.60 cents in Survey No.598/1 in the year 1975. He further contended that he had obtained patta for an extent of 1 acre and 13½ cents, including Meichal Poromboke land. According to the respondent, the petitioners had encroached upon a portion of his land measuring 0.60 cents. On these grounds, he sought dismissal of the suit.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.215 of 2023 seeking amendment of the plaint with respect to the extents of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. They sought to reduce the extent of Item No.1 to 15 cents and revise the extent of Item No.2 to 38.5 cents. The petitioners contended that their father had originally purchased an extent of 2 acres and 60 cents in Survey No.598/1, out of the total extent of 3 acres and 20 cents, and that the remaining extent of 60 cents belonged to the respondent. At the time of the oral partition, an extent of 1 acre and 6 cents in the said survey number was allotted to the first petitioner, while an extent of 1 acre and 52 cents was allotted to the second petitioner.

CRP No. 4412 of 2023

6. According to the petitioners, while drafting the plaint, they had inadvertently included the entire extent of the respective subdivisions instead of restricting their claim to the portions actually belonging to them. In respect of Survey No.598/1A2, they had incorrectly claimed the entire extent of 38 cents, whereas the first petitioner was entitled only to 15 cents out of the total extent of 32 cents, and the remaining 17 cents belonged to the respondent. Similarly, in respect of Survey No.598/1B2, they had incorrectly claimed the entire extent of 81.5 cents, whereas the second petitioner was entitled only to 38.5 cents and the remaining 44 cents belonged to the respondent. The petitioners contended that these discrepancies were inadvertent mistakes that came to their knowledge only when the matter was posted for trial. They further submitted that the proposed amendment would neither introduce a new case nor cause any prejudice to the respondent.

7. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the amendment petition. He contended that the alleged mistakes were not inadvertent and that the petitioners were aware of the extent of their land even in the year 2006. He further submitted that two witnesses had already been examined on behalf of the petitioners and D.W.1 had been examined on behalf of the respondent, and that the matter had been posted for arguments. The respondent also relied upon the deposition of P.W.2, who, during cross-examination, admitted that the

CRP No. 4412 of 2023

respondent was carrying on agricultural activities in Survey Nos.598/1A2 and 598/1B2 and was in possession of the suit schedule properties. According to the respondent, although the extent of his purchase in 1975 had been incorrectly stated as 60 cents instead of 1 acre and 13½ cents, he had obtained patta for the larger extent. He further contended that the petitioners had purchased their property in 1978 without properly verifying the measurements, despite the sale deed referring to the respondent's land as the northern boundary. The respondent relied upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner in support of his contentions and sought dismissal of the amendment petition.

8. The learned Trial Judge, upon considering the rival submissions, dismissed the amendment petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

10. Admittedly, the suit was instituted in the year 2015, claiming the entire extents of the respective survey numbers. The trial has been completed, and the suit has been posted for arguments. The principal contention of the

CRP No. 4412 of 2023

petitioners is that they came to know of the alleged mistakes in the description and extent of the suit schedule properties only when the matter was posted for trial. However, the original pleadings proceed on the basis that the entire extents claimed in the plaint belong to the petitioners and that the respondent has no right over any portion of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. By way of the proposed amendment, the petitioners now seek to restrict their claim to smaller extents and stating that the remaining portions belong to the respondent. Thus, the proposed amendment is not merely a correction of a clerical or typographical error. It would materially alter the petitioners' original stand regarding the extent of their ownership and the respondent's rights over the disputed properties.

11. It is also relevant to note that, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners executed a general power of attorney deed in favour of one Govindaraj authorising him to conduct the proceedings on their behalf. The same extents of the properties as originally described in the plaint were mentioned in the said deed. If the petitioners were entitled only to the reduced extents now claimed, they had an opportunity to verify the measurements and identify the alleged discrepancies while executing the general power of attorney deed.

CRP No. 4412 of 2023

12. The learned Trial Judge also observed that the petitioners had framed their pleadings and conducted the trial on the specific footing that the entire extents of the properties belonged to them. The respondent participated in the proceedings on the basis of those pleadings and contested the petitioners' claim accordingly. At this advanced stage, permitting the proposed amendment would substantially alter the nature of the dispute and introduce a position inconsistent with the petitioners' original case.

13. It is well settled that courts should adopt a liberal approach while considering applications for amendment of pleadings, particularly when such amendments are sought before the commencement of trial. If it is post trial, the Court shall verify the fact that in spite of the due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

14. In the present case, the petitioners have not satisfactorily explained why the alleged discrepancies have not been identified before the commencement of trial. Their own pleadings indicate that they became aware of the alleged mistakes only when the matter was posted for trial. However, the suit had been pending since 2015, and the general power of attorney deed executed during pendency of the suit contains the same description and extents of the properties as those originally stated in the plaint. These circumstances

CRP No. 4412 of 2023

indicate that the petitioners have failed to establish the requisite due diligence. The proposed amendment, sought after the completion of trial and at the stage when the suit was posted for arguments, cannot be permitted in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Therefore, the application appears to be an afterthought. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, in I.A.No.215 of 2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2015.

15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, and the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, in I.A.No.215 of 2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2015 is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KKN

CRP No. 4412 of 2023

To The District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.

CRP No. 4412 of 2023

R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. KKN CRP No. 4412 of 2023 27-10-2026