CRP/4018/2026 of S.Dhivya Rathna Vs B.Veerarajan on 9 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of 2023 in OS.No.639 of 2018 dated 16.03.2026, on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Salem.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. This Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed OS.No.639 of 2018, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from alienating the suit property to the third party and for a declaration to declare the sale deed dated 09.05.2018, executed by defendants 1, and 2 in favour of the 3rd defendant as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant not to entertain any documents for registration pertaining to the suit property.

5. The defendants filed IA.Nos.5 of 2023 and 6 of 2023 seeking for amendment of the written statement to the following effect:

1) In the written statement, page 2, para 6, "Delete" the sentence, " This defendant and the and 2 defendant have paid the entire sale consideration to the plaintiff on the date of the sale itself, i.e., 09-05-2018 and have obtained receipt for the same from the plaintiff and in that place "add” The plaintiff along with his father and others fixed the sale price to the suit property and got Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs only) on 01-03-2016 itself and the plaintiff receiving the said amount, has executed a stamped receipt in favour of this defendant and the 2nd defendant, the above said Elangeswaran. The said Baskaran paid the sale price of Rs.17,00,000/-(Rupees seventeen lakhs only); to this defendant and the 2iại defendant, the amount which was already fixed by the parties and received by the plaintiff on 01-03-2016 itself.

2) In page 4, para 9, "Delete”, The plaintiff was well aware and was present in Salem to receive the sale consideration and has also issued the receipt for the same." And in that place "Add" "The plaintiff who was present was well aware of the fact that this defendant along with the 2d defendant is receiving the sum of Rs.17,00,000/- from the 3rd defendant as sale consideration which was already been paid to the plaintiff even on 01-03-2016 itself”.

The Court below has allowed IA.Nos.5 and 6 of 2023 and aggrieved by the same, CRP.Nos.5960 and 4019 of 2026 have been filed by the plaintiff.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff filed IA.No.3 of 2023, to amend the plaint as follows: "6. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants 1 - 3 has forged her signature in the 'Life Certificate' for the purpose off registration of sale deed document No.2482/2018, dated 09.05.2018 based on the 'power of attorney'. In view of the forgery of plaintiffs signature and fraud played by the Defendants 1 - 3 in the execution of sale deed vide document No.2482/2018 dated 09.05.2018 became nullity. Hence, the sale deed No. 2482/2018 is tainted with forgery and fraud and deserves to be declared as null and void" and thus render justice”.

7. The court below dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, CRP.No.4018 of 2026, has been filed by the plaintiff.

8. The plaintiff filed IA.No.8 of 2023, for sending the life certificate dated 09.05.2018 and the receipt dated 01.3.2016 for expert opinion on the ground that the signatures found therein are forged and fabricated. The Court below partly allowed the application insofar as the receipt dated 01.3.2016 is concerned but dismissed the application insofar as the life certificate dated 09.5.2018. Aggrieved by the same, CRP.No.4119 of 2016, has been filed by the plaintiff.

9. The plaintiff filed IA.No.9 of 2023 seeking for a direction to the 3rd defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards interim damages pending disposal of the suit. This application came to be dismissed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, CRP.No.4118 of 2026, has been filed by the plaintiff.

10. The plaintiff/petitioner has approached the Court below with a cause of action that she was the owner of the suit property and that a power of attorney was given in favour of 1st and 2nd defendants and in contravention of the conditions provided under the power of attorney document, the 1st and 2nd defendants are alleged to have violated the same and sold the suit property in favour of the 3rd defendant.

11. The defendants initially had filed a written statement and took a stand that the entire sale consideration was paid to the plaintiff on the date of sale itself on 9.5.2018. Subsequently, they filed an amendment application and took a stand that the plaintiff along with her father and others received a sum of Rs.17 lakhs on 01.3.2016 itself and executed a stamped receipt in favour of the defendants and the plaintiff was aware of the fact that defendants 1 and 2 received the sum of Rs.17 lakhs towards the sale consideration paid by the 3rd defendant and received by the plaintiff on 01.3.2016 itself.

12. The plaintiff has refuted this stand taken by the defendants by virtue of filing applications for amendment of written statement. The very sale receipt dated 01.03.2016 that was relied upon by the defendants has been put to challenge on the ground that it is a forged document. Apart from that, the plaintiff has raised a new ground that later on looking at the life certificate it was ascertained that the signature in the life certificate has also been forged. To that extent, the plaintiff wants to include an averment in the plaint.

13. Ultimately, the plaintiff in the main suit has sought for the relief of declaring the sale deed executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants in favour of the 3rd defendant on 09.5.2018 as null and void. The pleadings alone is complete and the rival contentions on the part of both sides is yet to be tested by way of evidence. Therefore, the amendment that was sought for by the defendants in the written statement and the amendment that was sought for by the plaintiff in the plaint can be allowed and that will not in any way cause prejudice to both the parties since their rival claims are yet to be tested by the Court below in trial.

14. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below in IA.Nos.5 and 6 of 2023 does not suffer from perversity warranting the interference of this Court. Insofar as IA.No.3 of 2023, is concerned since the validity of the very sale deed is questioned by the plaintiff, the additional averment that has been made in the plaint questioning the genuineness of the life certificate can also be considered in the course of trial and an opportunity can be given to the plaintiff. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below in IA.No.3 of 2023 is liable to be interfered by this Court and the same is hereby set aside.

15. Insofar IA.No.8 of 2023 is concerned, the Court below has disallowed the life certificate to be sent for expert opinion only on the ground that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff in this regard was rejected in IA.No.3 of 2023. Now the amendment has been allowed by this Court and hence the expert opinion sought for by the plaintiff for both the life certificate as well as the sale receipt can be allowed and the Court below can send both the documents for expert opinion. Accordingly, disallowed portion of the order passed in IA.No.8 of 2023 is set aside.

16. Insofar as IA.No.9 of 2023 is concerned, unless and otherwise the sale deed executed in favour of the 3rd defendant is held to be bad, the 3rd defendant cannot be assumed to be holding the property illegally. Therefore, there is no question of directing the 3rd defendant to pay any damages to the plaintiff. In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below in IA.No.9 of 2023 does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court.

17. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

a) CRP.No.4018 of 2026, stands allowed

b) CRP.No.5906 of 2026 and CRP.No.4019 of 2026 stands dismissed.

c) CRP.No.4119 of 2026 stands allowed

d) CRP.No.4118 of 2026 stands dismissed ; and

e) The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit in OS.No.639 of 2018, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. These Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp

To II Additional District Munsif, Salem.

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP.Nos.4018, 4019, 4118, 4119 and 5960 of 2026

09-10-2026