SANGEETHA Vs. K. MEENATCHISUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S.No. 94 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, is the revision petitioner herein. The first respondent/first plaintiff and another filed the suit originally for the relief of injunction, stating that the suit property was purchased by one Mr. Manicka Thevar and he formed a layout and sold seven plots to one Mrs. Thangamma Mathew, under a registered deed, dated 26.8.1967. The said Thangamma Mathew, died intestate, on 17.04.1994, leaving behind her daughters and son and her legal representatives. The said legal representatives appointed Mr. M. Hanuman Prasad, as their Power Agent. The Power Agent sold 1088 sq.ft., which is a part of Plot No. 9 to the plaintiffs, under the registered deed, dated 11.12.2006, and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revision petitioner/first defendant, who is the owner of Plot No. 7, is attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit property and hence, the suit was filed for injunction. The revision petitioner/first defendant filed a written statement, denying the allegation of trespass by her and also denied the title of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application, viz., I.A.No. 1254 of 2011, under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the pleadings and also to include the relief of declaration of title. The said application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that under the guise of amendment, the plaintiffs have given up their case, as stated in the plaint and introduced a new case, and also included the prayer for declaration and valued the declaratory relief under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') instead of valuing under Section 25 (a). It is, therefore, contended that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs ought not to have been allowed by the Court below, as the plaintiffs are not entitled to give up their own case and introduce a new case.

(2.) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner regarding the amendment of the pleadings. Admittedly, before the commencement of trial, application for amendment was filed. Further, a perusal of the particulars of amendment would also make it clear that no new case has been introduced by the plaintiffs and in the amendment in Paragraph No. 3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have only traced title to their predecessor in title of the property. As a matter of fact, there is no necessity for the plaintiffs to delete the first six lines and even in the absence of details furnished in Paragraph No. 3, the parties are entitled to adduce evidence regarding their title. Therefore, in Paragraph No. 3, they have introduced only their vendors' title and they have not given up their title traced from Mr. Manicka Thevar, as stated in the original plaint. The amendment sought for in Paragraph No. 4, as well as the insertion of Paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, are due to the subsequent events taken place, after the filing of the suit and it is clearly stated that, after the filing of the suit, the Revenue Authorities, have given patta in favour of the revision petitioner/first defendant without considering the title of the plaintiffs and therefore, they included the relief of declaration of title, as their title is challenged by the first defendant before the Revenue Authorities. Considering all these aspects, and the fact that it is a pre-trial amendment, the Court below has rightly allowed the application, holding that by permitting the plaintiffs to include the relief of declaration, multiplicity of proceedings is avoided and the plaintiffs have not introduced any new case and they have only traced their title to the suit property and also brought to the notice of this court regarding the events that had taken place, after the filing of the suit.

(3.) Nevertheless, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the plaintiffs having prayed for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the immovable property, ought to have valued the relief under Section 25 (a)of the Act and they cannot value the same under Section 25 (d). As a matter of fact, Mr. R. Subramanian, the learned counsel for the first respondent also fairly conceded that the relief of declaration ought to have been valued under Section 25 (a) and not under Section 25 (d) of the Act. Hence, the learned counsel for the first respondent prayed that the Court below may be directed to consider that issue during trial.