PADMAVATHI AMMAL Vs. S MUTHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No.19353/2003 are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE first petitioner/plaintiff is the wife of one Thangavelu Nadar. It appears, the deceased first defendant by name Mallammal @ Mariammal is the sister of the said Thangavelu Nadar. THE revision petitioners/plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of Thangavelu Nadar, have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged half share in the 'A' schedule property, elsewhere in the year 1987, on the file of the Ist Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai, which is numbered as O.S.No.6816/1988. Pending proceedings, Mallammal died. It appears, defendants 2 & 3 claim title to the suit property, in pursuance of a settlement deed executed by the deceased/first defendant. THE plaintiffs, more or less, as seen from paragraph-7 of the plaint, admitting that the first defendant had settled some portion of the property, in favour of defendants 2 & 3, under a registered settlement deed dated 9.3.1985, have claimed division of the property, contending that the defendants 2 & 3 are claiming absolute right over the suit property.

(3.) OPPOSING the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents submits, that in view of the stand taken by the plaintiffs in the original plaint, they cannot be allowed somersault, by introducing the proposed amendment, which aims to nullify the previous statements, which is an admission and in this view, it is the further submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, that the petition deserves to be dismissed, as rightly did by the trial Court. The other ground to oppose the amendment application raised on behalf of the contesting respondents is, that after the trial of the suit is commenced, amendment is prohibited under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. and in this view also, the order of the trial Court, in not entertaining the amendment application, is perfectly valid.