CHINNASAMY Vs. KANDASAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 07.02.2015 made in I.A. No. 777 of 2014 in O.S. No. 202 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Perundurai.

(2.) The revision petitioner herein as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 202 of 2005 for declaration of title and injunction stating that originally the suit property belongs to one Kandasamy, who is the first defendant, under the registered sale deed dated 31.03.1982, from whom, the revision petitioner/plaintiff purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 04.05.1988 and from that onwards, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Suddenly, the first defendant attempted to interfere with the same on 27.06.2005 by denying plaintiff's title. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. Now the plaintiff's side evidence has been over and when the matter was posted for cross -examination of D.W.1, the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A. No. 777 of 2014 for amendment of survey number in the description of the suit property. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submits that it is true, amendment application has been filed after commencement of trial. The first defendant/Kandasamy purchased the suit property on 31.03.1982 and the entire property has been purchased by the plaintiff from the first defendant on 04.05.1988. But during the survey, the survey number in the suit property has been sub -divided. Hence, the plaintiff wants to amend the same. The trial Court, without considering the above aspect, dismissed the application. He further submits that even after commencement of trial, as per Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint to do substantial justice. Neither the deceased Kandasamy nor the persons, who stepped into the shoes of Kandasamy, entitled to possess and enjoy the suit property in pursuance of the sale deed dated 31.03.1982 and whether the said Kandasamy retained some properties are to be decided only at the time of trial. The plaintiff is also ready to pay some costs to the defendants 2 and 3. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the revision. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the following decision: