CRP(MD)/2527/2026 of MURUGAN Vs The Government of Tamilnadu on 11 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against the order dated 19.08.2026 passed in IA.No.4 of 2026 in OS.No.53 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration claiming that the petitioner/ plaintiff is the sole legal heir of deceased Sankaranarayanan.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the 3rd respondent/3rd defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife on 11.03.2024 and immediately thereafter, his wife also executed a settlement deed in favour of his son. Both the documents were created as lis pendens. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to declare the above documents as null and void and has filed a petition under Order VI Rule 7 of CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint prayer as follows : “To include the suit property for an extent of 4 ½ cents house situated in survey No.1557/17 along with electricity connection and to declare the Document No.1005/2014, dated 18.03.2024 as null and void and also to declare the Document No.1417/2024, dated 08.04.2022 as null and void.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent/3rd defendant is the step-father’s son’s son and that he has no right whatsoever to transfer the property belonging to the father of the petitioner, and therefore, it is necessary to amend the plaint with the prayer sought for in the petition in I.A.No.4 of 2026. However, without considering the same, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Against which the present civil revision petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022 (SLP(C)No.22443 of 2019) (Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another), wherein in paragraph No.70, has held as follows : “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed

(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and

(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). .......

(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. ……..

(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.”

6. The trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition has been filed belatedly after a lapse of six years from the date of trial. The trial Court further observed that the petitioner /plaintiff had sought for the relief of declaration that the petitioner is the legal heir of Sankaranarayanan. The petitioner has not pleaded or established that he is possession of the land nor had he claimed ownership of the document which was purchased by the said Sankaranarayanan and also he has not contented that the 3rd respondent was attempting to alienate his property. At present, he has introduced a new plea alleging that they have transferred the property belonging to the original owner and has sought to declare the deeds executed by a third party in favour of another third party as null and void. According to the trial Court, the only point for consideration is whether the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute legal heir of Late.Sankaranarayanan. The proposed amendment, according to the trial Court, is no way connected with the plaint pleadings and hence, dismissed the petition.

7. This Court is of the view that the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the suit is to declare that he is the absolute legal heir of one late. Sankaranarayan and now the petitioner seeks to amend the prayer to declare the two sale deeds as null and void. However, the petitioner has not even mentioned as to whether he has the right over the property concerned or not in the said suit for declaration. Therefore, the amendment sought for is no way connected with the existing prayer or the pleadings in the plaint. The trial Court, after considering the documents properly, has rightly dismissed the petition. This Court is of the view that there is no merit in this civil revision petition and the order of the trial Court does not need interference and hence, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM To The Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2527 of 2026 11.09.2026