High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
CRP.No.643 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASOrder reserved on : 02.07.2025Order pronounced on : 14.07.2025CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJICRP.No.643 of 2025& CMP.No.3676 of 20251.Madhaiyan2.Ponnammal3.Arul Kumar4.Bala Chandran..PetitionersVs.1.K.Tirupathi2.K.Murugan..RespondentsPrayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.07.2024 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.136 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Munsif, Salem.For Petitioners: Mr.R.Subramanian for Mr.B.RaviFor Respondents: Mr.S.ArujunORDERThis revision is filed by the defendants, who were partly successful in seeking amemdment of the plaint. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 20252.The defendants sought for three amendments. Insofar as two out of three amendments, the revision petitioners did not even oppose the same. However, the third amendment was strongly opposed by the revision petitioners on the ground that the amemdment that is sought for in the schedule of the property is without any pleading and that when the plaintiffs claim title under the registered Settlement Deed, even the said registered Settlement Deed did not include the borewell, which is now sought to be included in the schedule alone. The Trial Court, despite strong opposition to the said amendment, proceeded to allow the same and aggrieved by the same, the defendants as revision petitioners, have challenged the said order.3.I have heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Arjun, learned counsel for the respondents.4.The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in and by I.A.No.5 of 2024, the plaintiffs sought inclusion of borewells in the schedule to the plaint. Taking me through the body of the plaint, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is absolutely no pleading with regard to the borewells and no purpose would be served by now seeking to include the same in the schedule, by way of amendment. He would also state that the claim of title is under the registered Settlement Deed which also does 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025not convey borewells or right to use the same and therefore, the Trial Court has clearly erred in permitting the said amendment. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.5.Per contra, Mr.S.Arjun, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the amendment application as prayed for. He would refer to the Settlement Deed to refute the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that there is no reference to the borewells in the said Settlement Deed and he would therefore state that the inclusion of borewells in the schedule was necessitated and rightly permitted by the Trial Court. 6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.7.There is no difficulty with regard to two out of three amendments since the revision petitioners themselves have not opposed the same. It is only with regard to the inclusion of borewells which was not agreeable to the defendants. With regard to the reference to the borewells in the Settlement Deed, I have perused the Settlement Deed dated 26.12.2016 registered in Doc.No.3695 of 2016. In the said Settlement Deed, I do not find any reference to existing 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025borewells and right to use such borewells being settled on the beneficiary under the said Settlement Deed. The reference is made only to wells and electric motor attached to the wells. There is only reference with regard to a right to draw water by installing pipes and this cannot be construed as settlement of a right in any existing borewells which is now sought to be included in the schedule to the plaint, by way of the amendment application.8.The Trial Court, however without assigning any reasons for permitting the said amendment to include two borewells in S.No.115/17, has proceeded to allow the application for amendment in entirety, holding that the defendants will not be prejudiced in any manner and the Court has to provide an opportunity to the parties for complete adjudication of the cause of action. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, when there is no whisper about even the existence of two borewells in the entire body of the plaint, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to include two borewells in S.No.115/17 in the schedule alone. In fact, such permission to amend the schedule alone without any basis for the right over the said borewells would only lead to give the plaintiffs an unfair advantage. Moreover, on perusing the Settlement Deed, I have also found that there is no reference to two borewells in S.No.115/17 in the said document and even the right to draw water by installing pipes, if at all can be construed as a right to install borewells, was only in 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025respect of S.No.115/13 and not S.No.115/17. 9.In the light of the above, the Trial Court has clearly erred in holding that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, by permitting the proposed amendment. If at all the plaintiffs claim any right in respect of two alleged borewells in S.No.115/17, then there should be clear pleading with regard to the same in the body of the plaint. However, in the case on hand, there is not even a whisper about the existence of two borewells in S.No.115/17 in the entire plaint. 10.The relief sought for in the suit is only for declaring the right of the plaintiffs to a half share in the well, including the electric motor available in schedule A and for other reliefs. The schedule to the plaint is only a replication of the schedule that is available in the Settlement Deed dated 26.12.2016. Moreover, even in the valuation of various survey numbers that have been stated under the Settlement Deed also, there is no reference with regard to two borewells in S.No.115/17. 11.In the light of the above discussion and factual position, the plaintiffs have only attempted to mischievously include two borewells in the schedule to the plaint. The Trial Court ought not to have entertained the said amendment since it will amount to introducing altogether a new case which was never 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025pleaded in the plaint and did not form part of the cause of action also. In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Trial Court permitting the amendment.12.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 25.07.2024 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.136 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Munsif, Salem, partly only in respect of the amendment pertaining to inclusion of two borewells in S.No.115/17 at paragraph No.3 of the schedule A. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 14.07.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes/NoataToThe I Additional Munsif, Salem.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025P.B.BALAJI. J, ata7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025Pre-delivery order made inCRP.No.643 of 2025& CMP.No.3676 of 202514.07.20258/8
CRP.No.643 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASOrder reserved on : 02.07.2025Order pronounced on : 14.07.2025CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJICRP.No.643 of 2025& CMP.No.3676 of 20251.Madhaiyan2.Ponnammal3.Arul Kumar4.Bala Chandran..PetitionersVs.1.K.Tirupathi2.K.Murugan..RespondentsPrayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.07.2024 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.136 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Munsif, Salem.For Petitioners: Mr.R.Subramanian for Mr.B.RaviFor Respondents: Mr.S.ArujunORDERThis revision is filed by the defendants, who were partly successful in seeking amemdment of the plaint. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 20252.The defendants sought for three amendments. Insofar as two out of three amendments, the revision petitioners did not even oppose the same. However, the third amendment was strongly opposed by the revision petitioners on the ground that the amemdment that is sought for in the schedule of the property is without any pleading and that when the plaintiffs claim title under the registered Settlement Deed, even the said registered Settlement Deed did not include the borewell, which is now sought to be included in the schedule alone. The Trial Court, despite strong opposition to the said amendment, proceeded to allow the same and aggrieved by the same, the defendants as revision petitioners, have challenged the said order.3.I have heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Arjun, learned counsel for the respondents.4.The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in and by I.A.No.5 of 2024, the plaintiffs sought inclusion of borewells in the schedule to the plaint. Taking me through the body of the plaint, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is absolutely no pleading with regard to the borewells and no purpose would be served by now seeking to include the same in the schedule, by way of amendment. He would also state that the claim of title is under the registered Settlement Deed which also does 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025not convey borewells or right to use the same and therefore, the Trial Court has clearly erred in permitting the said amendment. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.5.Per contra, Mr.S.Arjun, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the amendment application as prayed for. He would refer to the Settlement Deed to refute the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that there is no reference to the borewells in the said Settlement Deed and he would therefore state that the inclusion of borewells in the schedule was necessitated and rightly permitted by the Trial Court. 6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.7.There is no difficulty with regard to two out of three amendments since the revision petitioners themselves have not opposed the same. It is only with regard to the inclusion of borewells which was not agreeable to the defendants. With regard to the reference to the borewells in the Settlement Deed, I have perused the Settlement Deed dated 26.12.2016 registered in Doc.No.3695 of 2016. In the said Settlement Deed, I do not find any reference to existing 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025borewells and right to use such borewells being settled on the beneficiary under the said Settlement Deed. The reference is made only to wells and electric motor attached to the wells. There is only reference with regard to a right to draw water by installing pipes and this cannot be construed as settlement of a right in any existing borewells which is now sought to be included in the schedule to the plaint, by way of the amendment application.8.The Trial Court, however without assigning any reasons for permitting the said amendment to include two borewells in S.No.115/17, has proceeded to allow the application for amendment in entirety, holding that the defendants will not be prejudiced in any manner and the Court has to provide an opportunity to the parties for complete adjudication of the cause of action. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, when there is no whisper about even the existence of two borewells in the entire body of the plaint, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to include two borewells in S.No.115/17 in the schedule alone. In fact, such permission to amend the schedule alone without any basis for the right over the said borewells would only lead to give the plaintiffs an unfair advantage. Moreover, on perusing the Settlement Deed, I have also found that there is no reference to two borewells in S.No.115/17 in the said document and even the right to draw water by installing pipes, if at all can be construed as a right to install borewells, was only in 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025respect of S.No.115/13 and not S.No.115/17. 9.In the light of the above, the Trial Court has clearly erred in holding that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, by permitting the proposed amendment. If at all the plaintiffs claim any right in respect of two alleged borewells in S.No.115/17, then there should be clear pleading with regard to the same in the body of the plaint. However, in the case on hand, there is not even a whisper about the existence of two borewells in S.No.115/17 in the entire plaint. 10.The relief sought for in the suit is only for declaring the right of the plaintiffs to a half share in the well, including the electric motor available in schedule A and for other reliefs. The schedule to the plaint is only a replication of the schedule that is available in the Settlement Deed dated 26.12.2016. Moreover, even in the valuation of various survey numbers that have been stated under the Settlement Deed also, there is no reference with regard to two borewells in S.No.115/17. 11.In the light of the above discussion and factual position, the plaintiffs have only attempted to mischievously include two borewells in the schedule to the plaint. The Trial Court ought not to have entertained the said amendment since it will amount to introducing altogether a new case which was never 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025pleaded in the plaint and did not form part of the cause of action also. In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Trial Court permitting the amendment.12.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 25.07.2024 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.136 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Munsif, Salem, partly only in respect of the amendment pertaining to inclusion of two borewells in S.No.115/17 at paragraph No.3 of the schedule A. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 14.07.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes/NoataToThe I Additional Munsif, Salem.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025P.B.BALAJI. J, ata7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.643 of 2025Pre-delivery order made inCRP.No.643 of 2025& CMP.No.3676 of 202514.07.20258/8