CRP(MD)/1153/2023 of K. THILAGAVATHI Vs K.N.RAJARAM (DIED),2).Rajesh on 9 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP(MD)No.1153 of 2023 has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 13/03/2023 passed by the Sub Judge, Sivakasi, in IA No.4 of 2022 in AS No.4 of 2010 against OS No.51 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Sivakasi, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners seeking permission to mark the additional documents on their side, whereas CRP(MD)No.1262 of 2023 has been filed challenging the order, dated 13/03/2023 passed by the Sub Court, Sivakasi, in IA No.13 of 2012 in AS No.4 of 2010 against OS No.51 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Sivakasi, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners seeking permission to receive the additional written statement.

2. The suit in OS No.51 of 2004 has been filed seeking declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The 1st petitioner/1st defendant is the 1st appellant and the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant is her husband in AS No.4 of 2010. Due to the death of the 2nd appellant, she filed an affidavit. The appeal filed by the petitioners/appellants to set aside the decree of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, passed in OS No. 51 of 2004, dated 26/11/2009. The 3rd plaintiff/Uma Maheswari filed a statement before the appellate court stating that there was no connection with the suit properties in respect of one Baskaran and she executed a power of attorney deed in favour of Advocate one namely Sivapathamuthu. Even after notice had been given for cancellation of the said power of attorney deed,the Advocate namely Sivapathamuthu sold the properties and also she stated that the said Advocate joined hands with Baskaran with an intention to kill her. The 1st petitioner received the encumbrance certificate in respect of the properties. According to her, she came to know about the sale transactions only after verifying the Encumbrance Certificate. Therefore, she sought permission to receive the Power of Attorney and other connected documents and to mark the same in the appeal, contending that otherwise, she would be put to hardship.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of argument stage, submitted that originally the suit schedule property belonged to one S.S.K.Natesa Nadar. After his death, the property devolved upon his sons namely Rajaram, Jegadeesan, Chellappan and Thyagarajan. During the life time of Natesa Nadar, a partition was effected and the respective properties were allotted to his sons.

4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that Jegadeesan, one of the sons subsequently sold, not only the property allotted to him, but also the properties allotted to his brothers. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner/1st defendant had purchased the suit property from the said Jegadeesan on 03/08/1990, believing that the property was his exclusive property. Subsequently, Rajaram claimed that the suit property had been allotted to him under the partition and instituted the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The 1st petitioner had also put up a construction in the suit property.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, during the course of the proceedings, it came to light that Jegadeesan had sold the properties allotted to his brothers to several third parties. Therefore, the 1st petitioner sought to produce the relevant documents to establish that she had purchased the property bona fide, under the belief that Jegadeesan was the absolute owner thereof. It was also contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in CRP(MD)No.1153 of 2023 and the 3rd respondent in CRP(MD)No. 1262 of 2023 submitted that the property in question had originally been allotted to Uma Maheswari (3rd plaintiff) under a partition deed, dated 15/12/1976. It was contended that Jegadeesan, suppressing the said partition, had subsequently sold the property to the present petitioner. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed as early as on 26/11/2009. Though the petitioners preferred the appeal in the year 2010, the first petitioner had not taken any steps to produce the present documents for several years and had filed the present applications only in the year 2022. It was, therefore, contended that the documents sought to be received are not relevant for deciding the appeal and that the applications have been filed only to protract the proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1st petitioner had not satisfactorily explained why the documents or the proposed additional pleadings were not placed before the trial Court.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 26/11/2009 and the petitioners preferred the appeal in the year 2010. The present applications seeking to mark the additional documents on their side and for receiving the additional written statement came to be filed only in the year 2022, after a considerable lapse of time. The petitioners seeks to introduce, by way of an additional written statement, new pleadings regarding the alleged subsequent sale of the properties by Jegadeesan, the division of the property into several plots, the alleged sale in favour of third parties, the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties and the alleged absence of any property owned by Jegadeesan after the year 1985. Though the 1st petitioner/1st defendant contends that she came to know about certain facts only when the matter was being proceeded with, no satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why such pleadings could not have been raised before the trial Court or, at least, at the earliest stage of the appeal. The petitioners cannot be permitted to introduce an entirely new set of pleadings after the conclusion of the trial and after the appeal had remained pending for several years.

9. It is also relevant to note that the trial had already been concluded after both parties were afforded sufficient opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners have not established any sufficient cause warranting reopening of the matter for the purpose of introducing new pleadings at this belated stage.

10. The power to permit additional pleadings at the appellate stage is required to be exercised judiciously and only when the circumstances warrant such indulgence. In the present case, the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the applications do not satisfactorily explain the enormous delay. The proposed additional pleadings also seek to introduce new factual contentions which were admittedly not raised before the trial Court.

11. The petitioners states that since in the judgment after the dismissal on the ground that they have not stated the above pleadings, the petitioners wants to file an additional counter in the appeal by stating that Jegadeesan the original owner sold the property allotted to him and also he divided the same into plots and sold the same to some persons and the suit was bad for non joinder

of necessary parties. Further, the petitioners denied the fact that after 1985 the said Jegadeesan did not possess any property on his own. She also denied the partition effected between the said Jegadeesan and his brothers. The trial Court categorically held that the petitioners have not taken any steps to file an additional written statement in the suit itself and they failed to explain as to why they have not filed the additional written statement before the trial Court. This Court is of the considered view that the trial Court conducted fair trial after examining both parties and after concluding the trial now they cannot re-open and include the new grounds in the written statement. When the matter was posted for appeal, that too after 10 years, after two years from the date of the appeal, the reasons stated in the affidavit are not acceptable and therefore, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the first appellate Court does not require any interference by this court.

12. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, was justified in dismissing I.A.No.4 of 2022 and IA No.13 of 2012. The orders under challenge does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

13. Accordingly, both Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.

09.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No er

R.POORNIMA, J. er To,

1. The District Munsif Court, Sivakasi.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

CRP(MD)Nos.1153 and 1262 of 2023 09/09/2026