Madrasdated High Court · 2025

C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 2025For Petitioner:Ms. D.Chitra MaragathamORDERChallenging the dismissal of their application for amending the plaint, the plaintiffs are before this Court. The parties are being referred to in the same rank as before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit OS.No.229 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, for the following relief:“(a) Granting an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and their men menials, agents, servants, labors, family members or any other persons acting on behalf of them from in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties;(b) Granting an order of mandatory injunction 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 2025directing the defendants 1 to 3 and their men menials, agents, servants, labors, family members or any other persons acting on behalf of them to reinstall boundaries stones and iron fence with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor and VAO of Kandiankoil Village in its original position of the suit lands in SF.No.806/8 of Kandiankoil village failing which to reinstall the stones by the Court commissioner of this Court.”3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the property described in the plaint by virtue of the partition deed dated 02.10.1977 registered as Doc.No.1624 / 1977, which is executed between the 1st plaintiff, his father Thirumalaisamy Gounder and his brothers, namely Deivasigamani Goundar, Rajamani and Gopalan.4. It is their case that from the date of the partition they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The suit property is their 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 2025ancestral property. The 2nd plaintiff is also entitled to the share by birth.5. The 1st defendant who is the father of defendants 2 and 3 owned properties comprised in S.No.806/06, which is situate to the north of the suit property. There is some misunderstanding and enmity between plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs on 12.06.2020 came to know that three boundary stones which have been fixed between the suit land and defendants' land had gone missing and it appears to be with an intent to encroach into the plaintiffs' property. 6. Therefore, on 15.06.2020 the plaintiffs had applied for measuring the suit property with the assistance of Surveyor of Tirupur South Taluk. However, the survey and measurement were objected to by the defendants. Therefore, they were unable to carryout the survey. 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 20257. It is the case of the plaintiffs that a week prior to the filing of the suit the defendants were making attempts to encroach into the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit. 8. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 1 and 2 denying the allegations contained in the plaint. The defendants would submit that under a registered sale deed dated 17.07.2006, the 1st defendant had purchased an extent of 1.17 acres in SF.No.806/6 and 806/5 of Kandian Kovil Village, for a valid consideration from one K.Muthusamy Gounder and others. 9. Thereafter, under a settlement deed dated 27.01.2020 the 1st defendant had settled the property in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of 0.23 cents out of 1.17 acres. The property which is covered under this settlement deed has been subdivided and is situate in S.F.No.806/6B.5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 202510. The defendant would submit that S.No.806/6B is situate to the North of S.F.No.806/8 and in between the two properties a well formed ridge with thorns, bushes and small trees, Neem tree, boundary stone etc., exists which clearly demarcates the suit property from the property of the defendants. That apart, there are well grown coconut trees abutting east west wall on the south side owned by the plaintiff. The defendants would further submit that the plaintiffs have come forward to the Court without proving material facts as also the actual physical features in and around the suit property more particularly between S.No.806 /8 and 806/6B. They would submit that the petitioners have come to Court with an absolutely false case and the same deserves to be dismissed. 11. The written statement was filed on 01.03.2021. Thereafter, the evidence in the suit was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioners have come forward with an 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 2025application in IA.No.594 of 2024 to amend the plaint. 12. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application the plaintiffs would contend that the defendants are staking claim to the coconut trees found in an extent of 1515 sq.ft, in S.No.806/8, thereby trying to enter possession. Therefore, they would submit that they have to amend the plaint to include the relief of declaration with reference to the land situate to the west of S.No.806/8. Therefore, they are constrained to file a suit for declaration in respect of the property starting from thar road situate in the west side of S.No.806/8 to the well and its boundary in S.No.806/9 measuring an extent of 9.1.5 sq.mts., in length and 5 feet in breadth including coconut trees therein. 13. The 3rd defendant filed a counter also on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 stating that the amendment has been made at a time of arguments and is only another attempt on the part of the plaintiffs not to proceed with the arguments. The defendants would submit that the 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 2025proposed amendment introduces a new case as also a new description of property. This amendment would only set the clock back. 14. The Principal District Munsif, Tiruppur, after hearing arguments and considering the records had proceeded to dismiss the said application. 15. The learned Trial Judge observed that originally the suit had been filed on the premise that the boundary stones had been removed and on the north of these boundary stones defendants' agricultural land were situate. Now by reason of the amendment the declaration is sought to be introduced for an extent of 1515 sq.ft., as also coconut trees. The learned Trial Judge observed that by amending the plaint, the plaintiffs are trying to introduce new subject matter and also changing the very nature of the suit property. 16. Challenging the same the petitioners are before this Court. 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 202517. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the amendment only seeks to clarify what is already been stated and that there is no change in nature of the suit.18. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 19. The plaintiffs have come to the Court originally in the year 2020 with a case that the defendants land comprised in S.No.806/6 is situate to the north of the suit property which is situate in S.No.806/8. That three boundary stones which were fixed between the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants have been removed and the defendants are trying to encroach into the plaintiff's property. Therefore, the suit has been filed for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction to refix boundary stones. 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 202520. The property that has been described in the suit as follows:“jpUg;g{u; upo. jpUg;g{u; $hapz;l; be/1 rg;o. gy;ylk; jhYhf;fh. jw;nghJ. jpUg;g{u; bjw;F jhYhf;fh. fz;oa';nfhtpy; fpuhkj;jpy; f/r/806 be/fhiy g[/V/17/70f;Fj; juk; 14/34 ,jpy; f/r/806-8 cl;gpupt[ fhiy g{kpapy; g[/bcw/1/37/50f;F g[/v/3/40 nkw;go g{kpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l cupikfs; g{uht[k; rfpjk; kl;Lk; tHf;Ff;FupaJ/ kjpg;g[ U:gha;/34.17.000-?.21. Now in the amendment the petitioners would seek to introduce a new description of the property by striking out the relief (a) in the suit with the following words:“1.Strike out the prayer (a) of the plaint and add the following paragraph(a) as here under.10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 2025(a)Declaring the plaintiffs title to the suit property in SF.No.806/8 of Kandiankoil village with an extent of 1515 sq.ft., from western boundary in between the survey fields 806/6A 806/6B and S.F.No.806/8 till the eastern boundary till S.F.No.806/9 and also granting an order of consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and their men menials, agents, servants, labors, family members or any other persons acting on behalf of them from in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.”22. Therefore the declaration of title is sought for an extent of 1515 sq.ft., in S.No.806/8, from the western boundary of S.No.806/6A, and 806/6B and 806/8, till the eastern boundary in S.F.No.806/9. Having sought for injunction from interfering with the lands in S.No.806/8, south of the boundary stones an entirely new property has been incorporated in the amended relief. 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 202523. The learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the said application and I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the same. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 09.04.2025Index: Yes/NoInternet: yes/Nokan12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 2025ToThe Principal District Munsif, Tiruppur. 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 2025P.T. ASHA.JkanC.R.P (PD) No.1455 of 202509.04.202514/14