SUHAIL BABU Vs. THAZHATH KARTHYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is it legal for a court to exclude a portion of the counter claim in a suit, that too after framing the issues, on the ground that later the written statement was amended and an additional relief was incorporated?

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondents.

(3.) Revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the 3rd respondent is the 2nd defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis of a stipulation in a partition deed permitting them to take water from a well situated in the land allotted to the 2nd defendant, under whom the 1st defendant (revision petitioner) is claiming a right. The revision petitioner contended that as per the stipulation in the partition deed, only when there is no water in the well situated in A schedule property to the partition deed or when it is dried up, the occupants in the house in the said property become entitled to take water from the disputed well. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 approached the court, claiming a decree for prohibitory injunction in respect of the right to take water, after filling up the well in their property. The revision petitioner therefore contended that the respondents 1 and 2 have no right to draw water from the well in his property after contravening the stipulations in the partition deed. Acceptability of these contentions will have to be answered in the suit.