SUBBAMMAL Vs. EASWARNAMURTHI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP.No.3185 of 2024 has been filed, challenging the order in I.A.No.386 of 2022 in O.S.No.30 of 2005 dtd. 3/7/2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, in and by which the amendment application taken out by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Insofar as CRP.No.4585 of 2024, the said revision petition has been filed, challenging the order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.30 of 2005 dtd. 13/8/2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, allowing an application for impleadment of proposed defendants in the suit.

(2.) I have heard Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for Mr.V.Anandamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.3185 of 2024, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.4585 of 2024 as well as the respondents in CRP.No.3185 of 2024 and Mr.Saran Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent in CRP.No.4585 of 2024.

(3.) Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.3185 of 2024 would state that the amendment that was sought for was innocuous and only in the nature of an alternate relief to include a relief for partition in the event of the Will being disbelieved by the Trial Court. He would further invite my attention to the fact that the suit was originally decreed in respect of Schedule 'A' property and dismissed insofar as Schedule 'B' property. However, the First Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court. He would further state that the Will has also been produced in land ceiling proceedings and at the time of adjudicating the issues, considering the oral and documentary evidence, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the Will is not genuine and true or for other reasons, the Will cannot be acted upon, then being the only other legal heir, the plaintiff, would certainly be entitled to at least half share in the property.