PAPPAL Vs. P KALLIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants. THE first respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way alienating or encumbering the suit property. According to the plaintiff, pending the suit, the first defendant had executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property and therefore it has become necessary for him to file the Interlocutory Application to amend the prayer in the suit seeking the relief of declaration on the ground that the settlement deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the 7th defendant is null and void. Further, according to the plaintiff he is having half right in the suit property as per the recitals in the partition deed dated 4.3.1978. Hence it is also necessary to include the relief of partition in the suit.

(2.) THE said Interlocutory Application was resisted by the defendants contending that the 7th defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property as per the settlement deed dated 20.7.1998 executed by the first defendant and hence the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the same. THE 7th defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After a lapse of 5 years the plaintiff has come forward with the present application and the amendment sought for by the plaintiff will change the entire character and nature of the suit.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the application for amendment is beyond the period of three years from the execution of the settlement deed. But, in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in P.B. Ramjee and Two others Vs. P.B. Lakshmanaswamy Naidu & 10 others (1996 (I) CTC 661), the amendment sought for was setting aside the sale deed which was sought for beyond the period of limitation. Likewise, in the decision in Rameeza Beevi and others Vs. S. Mohammed Ibrahim (2005 (5) CTC 619) also, the amendment sought for is for cancellation of the sale deed. Thus both the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners are on different context and on different set of facts which cannot be applied for the present case.