Madras High Court
CRP/6691/2026 of A. Rajagopalan Vs Lakshmi on 26 October 2026
CRP No. 6691 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6691 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012423212026}
AND
CMP NO. 28808 OF 2026
A. Rajagopalan
S/o. late. Appusamy Naidu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Lakshmi
W/o. P. Rangasamy
2. R. Natarajan
S/o. Rangasamy Gounder
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order and decree order passed in IA No.2 of 2026 in OS
No.3049 of 2013 dated 04.08.2026 on the file of IV Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and allow the above CRP.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.G.R.M.Palaniappan
for Mr.K.Magesh
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 challenging the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.2 of 2026 in OS No.3049 of 2013 dated 04.08.2026 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, wherein the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint came to be rejected by the Court below.
CRP No. 6691 of 2026
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in OS No.3049 of 2013 seeking for the relief of declaration of title based on a partition deed dated 06.03.1971 and other consequential reliefs.
4. The suit was at the stage of commencement of trial. At that stage, IA No.2 of 2026 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and the petitioner sought for the following reliefs by way of amendment:-
(ii) declaring that the sale deed dated 01.04.1992 alleged to have been executed in favour of the 2nd defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.
(iii) declaring that the Sale deed dated 15.10.1996 alleged to have been executed in favour of the 1st defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.
(iv) declaring that the patta issued in the names of defendants under Patta No.1731 by the Revenue officials is not valid and binding on the petitioner.
CRP No. 6691 of 2026
5. The petitioner also sought to incorporate the necessary averments in the plaint in order to support the above reliefs sought for by him.
6. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2013 and the amendment was sought for only in the year 2026, when the suit was at the stage of trial. The Court below rendered a finding that the petitioner did not establish that he had exercised due diligence and inspite of the same, was not able to seek for the necessary relief at the earliest point of time. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed before this Court.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the specific case of the petitioner is that he has right, title and possession over the suit property by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 06.03.1971 registered as document No.1020 of 1971 and that since the defendants were attempting to create a cloud over the property by creating documents, the petitioner had sought for the relief of declaration of title over the suit property. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the Sale deed dated 01.04.1992 and 15.10.1996. If that is so and if the petitioner is able to establish his absolute title over the suit property, he can always disregard the documents that were created by the defendants. It is now too well settled that a person who is not a party to the document and takes the stand that the transaction itself is void, need not seek for the relief of setting
CRP No. 6691 of 2026
aside the documents and he can always disregard the transaction, if ultimately he is able to establish his right and title over the suit property.
8. In view of the above, the order passed by the Court below does not warrant the interference of this Court, since ultimately the burden of proof is upon the petitioner / plaintiff to establish his right and title over the suit property in which case all those transactions which took place disregarding the title and the petitioner / plaintiff can always be avoided by the petitioner.
9. In the result, the order passed by the Court below is hereby confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit in OS No.3049 of 2013, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The IV Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore
CRP No. 6691 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 6691 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 28808 OF 2026 26-10-2026