E. PENCHLASWAMY Vs. E. PENCHALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.No.4846/2021 is filed to permit the applicant to amend the plaint filed in C.S.No.496 of 2017 by including the properties situated at Chengalpattu District and Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh, more fully described in the schedule. A.No.4847/2021 is filed to grant leave to sue against the properties situated at Chengalpattu District and Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh, more fully described in the schedule as required under Clause 12 of Letters Patent.

(2.) The applicant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit in C.S.No.496 of 2017. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of suit scheduled properties 'A' to 'E' and also for declaratory relief and for the relief of permanent injunction. At the time of filing the suit the plaintiff has included the property situated at Triplicane, Alandur, Ullagaram, Kolathur and Valasaravakkam. The applicant believed that he can include only those properties which are situated at Chennai. With the said belief he omitted to include other properties which have been jointly purchased by the plaintiff, his father and the first defendant and they are located at Chengalpattu and Nellore District at Andhra Pradesh. After coming to know that if the properties situated at the aforesaid places are not included in the suit filed by him, he has filed this amendment application for seeking permission to include the property situated at Chengalpattu and Nellore District as schedule 'F', 'G', 'H' & 'I' along with an application seeking permission under Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act.

(3.) The above applications were resisted by the respondents and a detailed counter has been filed. It is contended by the respondents that the applicant / plaintiff does not have any right in the above said properties and hence the applicant / plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief against the properties at Nellore and Chengalpattu. The rest of the averments stated in the counter do not speak about the jurisdictional point but they are mere denial of the entitlement of the plaintiff to those properties. Discussion: