HARIDASS Vs. VASANTHI CHOKKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision is to the order of the trial Court allowing an application in I.A.No. 116 of 2019 seeking an amendment of the plaint consequent upon the death of the 1st and 8th defendants in O.S.No. 382 of 2017.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No. 382 of 2017 was filed by the first respondent herein seeking for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/6th share. The plaintiff claims the said share as the daughter of one Chokkalingam, who has arrayed as the 1st defendant in the suit. The defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 were shown to be the sons of the said Chokkalingam. The 6th defendant Illayaraja, was shown to be sone of Mannankatti; the 7th defendant is one Selvaraj, son of Seranga Gounder. One Marimuthu, son of Poomalai was cited as the 8th defendant.

(3.) Claiming that the 1st and 8th defendants died pending suit and the first defendant had left behind the plaintiff and the defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 as his legal heirs, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the word 'deceased' after the description of the 1st and 8th defendants. In so far as the first defendant is concerned the plaintiff, in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, had averred that the first defendant had died leaving behind the plaintiff herself and the defendants 2 to 6. As regards the 8th defendant, it is stated that the 8th defendant was impleaded on an apprehension that he is attempting to purchase the property and now that the plaintiff learns that there is no sale in favour of the 8th defendant and the legal heirs of the 8th defendant were not required to be made parties to the suit. In effect, the plaintiff has given up the reliefs against the 8th defendant. This application was opposed contending that the application for amendment is not maintainable and that, it is only the plaintiff and the defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5, who are the legal heirs of the first defendant and not the 6th defendant.