Madras High Court
CRP/1174/2026 of B.Kamalaveni Vs V.Govindarajan on 16 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 1174 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010324262026}
AND
CMP NO. 5976 OF 2026
B.Kamalaveni
W/O. N.Balasubramanian,
D/O. Late R.Venkataraman
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. V.Govindarajan
S/O. Late R.Venkataraman
2. V.Karthikrishnan
S/O. Late R.Venkataraman
3. The Sub Registrar
Sembium,
Chennai 11.
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records of the suit in O.S.No.6140 of 2012 pending on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and set aside the fair and decretal order dated 08.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2024 in O.S.No.6140 of 2012 by the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Ravi
For Respondent(s):
R1 – Service awaited
Mr.Nallasenapathy for R2
Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi
Additional Government Pleader for R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.9 of 2024 in O.S.No.6140 of 2012 by the learned II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint, came to be dismissed by the Court below.
2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The original owner of the property was one Venkataraman. He is the father of the plaintiff and the first and second defendants. These three children were born to him from the wedlock of Mr.Venkatraman with one Tmt. Leela. It is further not in dispute that Mr.Venkatraman passed away in the year 2010 and Tmt. Leela passed away in the year 2012.
3. The claim of the plaintiff is that out of the natural love and affection, Mr.Venkatraman had executed four settlement deeds for the A
schedule mentioned property. He had settled 1/4th undivided share each in favour of the plaintiff, second defendant and his wife Tmt.Leela and his daughter-in-law (wife of the first defendant) Mrs.Nalini. The settlement deed in the plaintiff’s favour was executed on 25.01.2006. On 13.08.2010, this settlement deed was cancelled. Subsequently, on the death of Tmt.Leela, Mr.V.Govindarajan (i.e) the first defendant and Mr.V.Karthikrishnan partitioned the property of their mother amongst themselves to the exclusion of the plaintiff. This partition document was executed on 13.07.2012. Feeling aggrieved over the cancellation of the settlement deed executed by his father Venkatraman in his favour and in being excluded from the partition of the assets of the mother, the plaintiff filed the suit.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the following reliefs:- (a) for a declaration declaring that the cancellation of the settlement deed registered as Document No.6599 of 2010 dated 13.08.2010 at S.R.O. Sembium, is null and void;
(b) for a declaration, declaring that the partition deed registered as Document No.2090/2012 dated 13.07.2012 executed between the first and second defendant is null and void;
(c) for a partition by metes and bounds of the schedule C mentioned property and to allot the plaintiff-s legitimate 1/3rd share; (d) for a mandatory direction, directing the 3rd defendant not to entertain any registration in respect of the schedule A, B and C mentioned properties;
5. The parties went on trial and the evidence was closed. The suit was dismissed for non prosecution on 17.08.2023 and thereafter, an application was filed to restore the suit and the suit was restored. At that stage, IA No.9 of 2024 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint. In order to incorporate the following prayers in the plaint:- Mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendants to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property more fully described in the suit as schedule B property, failing which, the plaintiff may be directed to be put in possession of schedule B property through the process of the Court. Directing the 2nd defendant to pay Rs.45,000/- per month from November 2021 to till handing over the schedule B property being the damages for his use and occupation of the schedule B of the plaint.
6. The necessary averments to substantiate the relief sought for by way of amendment were also added.
7. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the right claimed by the plaintiff is yet to be established and therefore, the question of amending the plaint at that stage will not arise. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
8. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had earlier filed CRP No.436 of 2023 against the fair and decretal order passed in
IA No.5 of 2022. This Civil Revision Petition was disposed of by an order dated 04.10.2024. At that time, this Court recorded the fact that the plaintiff is confining her relief only with respect to the B Schedule property and the plaintiff does not have any claim over the A schedule or C Schedule properties. In the light of the above development, while confining the relief to the B schedule property, the petitioner / plaintiff is pressing only for the reliefs sought for in Paragraph 15(a) and (e) of the original plaint and for no other reliefs.
9. The plaintiff by way of filing the present application for amendment is only seeking for a consequential prayer if in case the relief is granted with respect to the prayer in Paragraph 15 (a) of the original plaint. If the said relief is granted and if the cancellation deed dated 13.08.2010 is held to be null and void, the consequential relief would be for a direction to the 2nd defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property prescribed in B Schedule and for payment of damages in the B schedule property. Instead of driving the plaintiff to file one more suit in this regard, those reliefs can be permitted to be incorporated along with the necessary averments supporting those reliefs. The amendment sought for does not change the character of the suit and the clarity regarding the relief sought for confining it to the B schedule property fructified only after the disposal of the earlier Civil Revision Petition on 04.10.2024. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused if the proposed amendments are allowed.
10. The Court below did not take note of these crucial factors and held that the relief sought for by way of amendment can be considered only after the main relief is granted, without appreciating that the reliefs sought for by way of amendment are only consequential reliefs supported by the necessary averments.
11. In the result, the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.9 of 2024 in O.S.No.6140 of 2012 by the learned II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is hereby set-aside. This Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2012, there shall be a direction to the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, to dispose of OS No.6140 of 2012 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 1174 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 5976 OF 2026 16-10-2026