SIVADAS Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O. S. 1002 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. His application in I. A. 8878 of 1999 to amend the plaint under O.6 R.17 of the CPC is dismissed by the lower court. Hence the above revision is preferred.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the above suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing or causing any damage to the residential building bearing No. 43/587 standing in the plaint schedule property and belonging to the plaintiff / revision petitioner. His case is that his mother, the first respondent executed a settlement deed No. 2270/86 in respect of 7 cents of land and the building situated therein in his favour and he has accepted the gift. Thereafter he is the absolute owner of the property and the building situated therein. According to him, at the insistence of the second respondent, his brother, the first respondent cancelled the gift in his favour by executing a document No. 2978 of 1988 which is void ab initio and the first respondent executed an assignment deed in favour of the second respondent in respect of 2.495 cents of land wherein the building is situated. Therefore, he filed the above suit seeking necessary reliefs against the respondents from causing any damage to the building or demolishing the building and obtained a temporary injunction against the respondents. His further case is that during the pendency of the above suit, the respondents trespassed upon the plaint schedule property and illegally demolished the building. Therefore he sought amendment of the plaint, by taking into account the events subsequent to the filing of the suit, seeking relief of recovery of possession of the 7 cents of land described in the plaint schedule with mesne profits at Rs. 100/- per annum, a decree for Rs. 30,000/- being damages for value of the building demolished by the respondents with interest thereon at 6% per annum and for a compensation of Rs. 1500/- for violating the injunction order passed by the lower court.

(3.) The respondents resisted the application and contended that if the amendment is allowed, the entire nature and character of the suit will be changed and will introduce a new cause of action for the plaintiff.