N. A. VELU Vs. P. SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.03.2020 made in I.A.No.53 of 2020 in O.S.No.38 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

(2.) The petitioner would aver among other things that he owns certain lands at S.No.1636/3 at Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. It is averred that the patta and all revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner. While so, since the petitioner was in urgent need of money, the petitioner approached the respondent herein who gave the money to the petitioner after executing a nominal sale deed for security purpose for the amount borrowed by the petitioner, who in turn, has to repay interest to the respondent. Even after executing of the nominal sale deed, it is stated by the petitioner that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. It is further stated that the petitioner paid interest of Rs.3,000/- per month till October 2012 and the same was received by the respondent also. According to the petitioner, the respondent has subsequently received a sum of Rs.90,000/- from him. Though the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs.1,29,000/- whereas, the respondent failed to receive the amount. In the meantime, on 21.02.2012, another sale agreement was entered between the parties for the amount borrowed by the petitioner for security purpose. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner was willing to pay the entire amount borrowed by him, the respondent neither received the amount nor returned the original documents. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to send a legal notice to the respondent on 13.10.2015 and the same was purposely evaded by the respondent. Thereafter, based on the sale deed, the respondent was taking steps to evict the petitioner forcibly from the property. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.38 of 2016 before the Sub-Court, Vedasandur praying for declaring the sale deed dated 21.01.2011 as 'Nominal Security deed' and declaration. Further, the petitioner states that as per the advice of the present counsel, the petitioner filed a petition to amend the prayer portion of the plaint as if declared the 'sale deed' dated 21.01.2011 as null and void in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. That petition was dismissed by the Court below vide its order dated 18.03.2020. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated earlier.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the prayer of the plaint is amended, the nature of the suit will not change in any way since the witnesses and parties are one and the same. Further, if the plaint is amended, the Court can come to the correct conclusion with regard to the suit schedule property. In fact, the respondent admitted in his counter that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and only the sale agreement was executed for the purpose of loan availed by the petitioner. It is only security purpose such sale was executed. However, the Court below without appreciating all those facts, had dismissed I.A.No.53 of 2020 by contending that if the amendment petition is allowed, the nature of the suit will be changed. Hence, he prays for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.