CHITRA Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of the Order dated 9.11.2010 made by the Trial Judge, namely, the learned 3rd Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, in I.A. No. 2245 of 2010 in O.S. No. 40 of 2008 on the file of the said Court. The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff in the above said Suit and the Respondent herein is the sole Defendant in the said Suit. The Suit came to be filed by the Revision Petitioner for a bare perpetual injunction not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit property (immovable property) described in the Plaint schedule. The claim was based on the Plaint averment that she purchased the property from the rightful owner by a Sale Deed dated 21.8.2002 and that ever since the purchase, she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. No averment was found incorporated in the Plaint indicating that the title of the Plaintiff was in dispute. Hence, the Suit was valued under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

(2.) The Respondent herein/sole Defendant, who entered appearance after receiving summons, filed a Written Statement on 10.4.2008. In the Written Statement, he denied and disputed not only the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the Suit property as claimed by her in the Plaint, but also the title of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff. Of-course, thereafter for about 2 years, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff did not come forward with an Application to amend the Plaint so as to include a prayer for declaration of title. While preparing the case for trial, as per the Legal Advise received by her, I.A. No. 2245 of 2010 came to be filed under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., for amendment of the Plaint by including an additional prayer for declaration of title and also a paragraph in the Plaint narrating how the Petitioner herein/Plaintiff would trace her title.

(3.) The Petition was resisted on the grounds (1) that the Petition was belated; (2) by the proposed amendment, the scope of the Suit was sought to be enlarged; and (3) the nature of the Suit itself was sought to be changed. The learned Trial Judge after hearing by an elaborate order which is impugned in this Revision, dismissed the said Petition sustaining the above said contentions raised by the Respondent herein/Defendant.