K MUTHIAYAN Vs. D RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the fair and decretal order dated 7. 11. 2001 made in I. A. No. 1396/2001, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Virudhachalam dismissing the petition filed under Or. 6 R. 17 CPC and declining the amendment relating to the description of the suit property. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) THE suit property relates to S. No. 353/7b-1. 80. 0 hectares 2. 19 acres on the southern side. Case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to his father Kathirvelu Udayar. After his death, the family properties were divided as per the details thereon. THE suit property was omitted to be included in the suit O. S. No. 1398/1974. THE Plaintiff's brother Krishnamurthi Udayar had earlier relinquished his interest in the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. Since then the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Patta stands in his name; he is paying the kist to the suit property. THE Defendants father Velusami Udayar is alleged to have purchased 0. 71 acres from Kathirvelu Udayar who is the brother of the Plaintiff. Total extent of suit survey number is 2. 90 acres. THE plaintiff has been in possession of 2. 19 acres of the suit property. THE defendants approached the Plaintiff to sell the suit property to them which was declined by the Plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the Defendants are attempting to cause interference to the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Excepting 0. 71 acres, the Defendants have no manner of right or interest in the area 2. 19 acres, which he is in the possession of the plaintiff. THEre was exchange of pre-suit notice between the parties. THE Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction, alternatively the plaintiff has also prayed for delivery of vacant possession.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the dismissal of the amendment application, the Plaintiff has preferred this revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff has contended that the lower Court grossly erred in holding that the Plaintiff and his brother have sold the property on the northern and southern side of the suit property in entirety to the father of the Defendants. It is further submitted that when the Plaintiff only seeks for change of the boundaries, it would not in any way introduce a new case nor would it cause prejudice to the Defendants.