G BABU Vs. K SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.194 of 1998 filed by him for bare permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: Pending suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application in the suit in I.A.No.396 of 2002 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the prayer portion, stating that on 05.02.1998 at 06.00 am., when the petitioner/plaintiff was standing at Hasthampatti Bus stop to proceed to Yercaud, respondents 1 and 2 along with three known persons came in a car and auto and assaulted him at the back and he became unconscious. At 7.45 p.m., on the same day, when he became conscious, he found himself travelling along with respondents 1 and 2 and three others. THE first respondent stopped car and threw the plaintiff out of car, stating that the properties of the petitioner have been registered and if he utters the same, they would close him and his family. THE petitioner was not aware of the properties which were said to be registered on that day. THE sale deeds alleged to have been registered on 05.02.1998 would not bind the petitioner/ plaintiff sine they are not supported by any consideration and they were obtained while the petitioner was in a unconscious condition. Hence, he prays for amendment of the prayer portion, after the word permanent injunction as, "to pass a decree for cancellation of the three sale deeds dated 05.02.1998 registered as document Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of 1998 before the Sub Registrar, Yercaud, as null and void and consequentially direct defendants 4 and 5 to make suitable entries in their registers and records to this effect. On the other hand, respondents 1 to 3 filed counter-affidavit contending that the petition itself barred by limitation and the time barred relief cannot be included in the pending suit for bare injunction by amendment. THE petitioner/plaintiff having stated in paragraph v of the plaint that the alleged sale deed or documents in respect of the suit properties in favour of defendants 1 to 3 or their men is invalid, void and not binding on the plaintiff, is estopped from taking a contrary stand and hence, the interlocutory application is liable to be dismissed. After hearing both sides, the Court below has dismissed the interlocutory application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had knowledge about the sale deed within a period of three years, and there is no necessity for fling this application to amend the plaint as one for settling aside the sale deeds and the amendment sought for is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come forward with the present civil revision petition.

(3.) HE would rely on yet another decision of our High Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 734 (S.Kuppusamy V. P.K.Subramani & Others which reads as follows: