PONNAN Vs. GOVINDASAMY ALIAS SARKARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 01. 12. 1999 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in i. A. No. 3167 of 1999 in O. S. No. 689 of 1998, dismissing the Petition filed under order VI Rule 17 C. P. C, declining to amend the Plaint. The Plaintiff is the revision Petitioner.

(2.) O. S. No. 689 of 1998:- The Plaintiff has filed the Suit for permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the "a-Schedule" Property and for Partition of his half share in the "b-Schedule" Properties. "a-Schedule" Property is the Rice Mill. "b-Schedule" Properties comprise of 13 items. Case of the Plaintiff is that he has been in enjoyment of "a-Schedule" Property Rice Mill. In lieu of the share given to the defendant in S. No. 54/5 of Periyamampattu vacant site and the house thereon, the first Defendant was allotted the property in S. No. 13/4 and the terraced house thereon at Vilakkur Village . The Plaintiff and the First Defendant are in common enjoyment of the "b-Schedule" properties. While being so, the First Defendant has created false document as if the Deceased Father Kandasamy had bequeathed the "b-Schedule" properties in favour of the First Defendant and the Second Defendant. The said documents are false and not binding upon the Plaintiff. Claiming a share in the "b-Schedule" Properties, the Plaintiff has issued a Legal Notice dated 08. 06. 1998. Since the First Defendant had not effected Partition, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Partition, claiming his half share in the "b-Schedule" Properties. The Suit is also filed for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the "a-Schedule" Property.

(3.) UPON consideration of the averments in the Affidavit and in the Counter Affidavit, learned District Munsif dismissed the Application pointing out the earlier proceedings in the High Court wherein the High Court has given direction to dispose of the Suit before 24. 11. 1999. Further pointing out that the Suit was posted for hearing in the list on 02. 12. 1999, learned district Munsif was of the view that the Amendment Application has been filed only to delay the trial proceedings.