Madras High Court
OSA/114/2026 of T.Shanmugapriya Vs T.Senthilkumaran on 24 September 2026
OSA No. 114 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 114 of 2026
and CMP.No.16186 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011440002026}
T.Shanmugapriya
..Appellant(s)
Vs
T.Senthilkumaran
..Respondent(s)
This Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, 1994 read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 24.02.2026 passed in A.No. 5774 of 2025 in
C.S.No. 126 of 2024.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.M.S.Murali, for M/s.R and P Partners
For Respondent(s):
Ms.Tanya Kapoor, for M/s.TNR Legal
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.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.) The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No. 5774 of 2025 in C.S.No. 126 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the
OSA No. 114 of 2026
written statement and counter-claim was allowed, and consequently, to dismiss the said application.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant/plaintiff filed C.S.No.126 of 2024 before this Court seeking partition of the suit schedule property on the basis of the Settlement Deed dated 21.08.2002, under which the appellant and the respondent were entitled to equal shares. The respondent/defendant filed his written statement and counter-claim and thereafter, filed A.No.5774 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement and counter-claim. By the said amendment, the respondent sought to raise a claim for a sum of Rs.1,09,27,149/- with interest at 24% per annum towards the alleged redemption of mortgage and also sought an alternative prayer for allotment of 61% share in the suit schedule property. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 24.02.2026, allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present Original Side Appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the appellant's entitlement to 50% share in the suit property, whereas the respondent is not entitled to claim 61% share contrary to the Settlement Deed. It is submitted that the proposed amendment substantially alters the nature and character of the partition suit and introduces a new cause of
OSA No. 114 of 2026
action relating to redemption of mortgage. Therefore, the amendment ought not to have been allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no legal bar for allowing the amendment and that the learned Single Judge has rightly permitted the respondent to amend the counter-claim. It is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant by permitting the amendment and that all the rights and contentions of the parties can be adjudicated during the course of trial. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. On a perusal of the pleadings and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the appellant admittedly instituted the suit for partition and that the respondent filed a counter-claim and thereafter, sought amendment of the same. The relationship between the parties and their respective rights are not in dispute. At this stage, while considering the amendment, the Court is primarily required to examine whether any prejudice would be caused to the opposite party by permitting the amendment, particularly when the issues sought to be raised by way of the amended counter-claim can be adjudicated
OSA No. 114 of 2026
during the course of trial. In the present case, no sufficient prejudice would be caused to the appellant by permitting the amendment. The respective rights and shares of the parties can be adjudicated in the suit after the parties let in their evidence. The grounds raised by the appellant with regard to the maintainability of the claim, the alleged change in the nature of the suit and the entitlement of the respondent to the claimed share can be considered during the trial. Therefore, the challenge to the order allowing the amendment does not warrant interference in the present appeal.
7. In view of the above discussions, the Original Side Appeal is dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to raise all their respective grounds and contentions during the course of trial. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the respective claims of the parties. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (P.V.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VKR To The Sub Assistant Registrar(Original Side), Madras High Court, Chennai.
OSA No. 114 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. VKR OSA No. 114 of 2026 24-09-2026