PAPPAMMAL ALIAS A PAPPA SHANKAR DECEASED Vs. JEBASELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.7817 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai, aggrieved over the order dated 18.02.2011 in I.A.No.710 of 2010, whereby the court below has allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the respondent herein filed the suit in C.S.No.77 of 2009 before this Court for (a) declaring the settlement deed dated 23.09.2008 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4 registered as Document No.3380 of 2008 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff so far as the half share of the plaintiff in the suit properties is concerned; (b) declaring the settlement deed dated 06.10.2008 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant registered as Document No.3499 of 2008 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff in so far as the half share of the plaintiff in the suit properties is concerned; (c) to pass a decree for partition and separate possession by dividing the suit schedule properties into two equal shares and allot " share to the plaintiff by its metes and bounds; (d) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, subordinates, henchmen or anybody claiming under or through them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties; (e) for mandatory injunction directing the 5th to 7th defendants to deposit the rent amount into this Court derived from item 1 of the schedule mentioned property from the date of plaint till the disposal of the above suit; and (f) for cost of the suit."

(3.) PER contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the amendment sought to be made would not change the cause of action. In fact, there is a prayer for partition in the plaint. By introducing these allegations, the prayer is not going to be altered. Moreover, after filing the suit, the 2nd defendant by cancelling the earlier settlement deed dated 06.10.2008, obtained a new settlement deed dated 12.12.2008 from his mother by coercion and threat. Therefore, the amendment by substituting the earlier settlement deed with subsequent settlement deed dated 12.12.2008 is must; otherwise, it would cause great hardship to the plaintiff. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision reported in RAJKUMAR GURAWARA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. .vs. S.K.SARWAGI & CO.PVT.LTD., (2008 (5) CTC 253).