THIRUMANI Vs. SAKTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr. C. Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. L.S. Hasan Fizal, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The material papers available on record are also perused. The defendants in O.S. No. 134 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram are the petitioners in the present revision. Admittedly, the suit properties were purchased by two brothers, by names Raghupathy and Thanikachalam under a Sale Deed dated 21.02.1979. The first respondent/first plaintiff is none other than the widow of the above said Thanikachalam. The second respondent/second plaintiff is the daughter of the said Thanikachalam. They filed the suit as legal heirs of Thanikachalam, claiming their half share in the suit property. The suit is contested by the petitioners herein. The said suit was filed by the respondents herein against the petitioners herein and three more persons. The petitioners herein, who figured as defendants 1 to 3 are contesting the suit on the basis of the written statement filed by the first petitioner herein/first defendant, which has been adopted by the petitioners 2 & 3 herein/defendants 2 and 3.

(2.) In their written statement, they contended that the above said Thanikachalam did not die intestate and he left a Will dated 08.05.1989 bequeathing his half share of the suit property in favour of Raja, the second petitioner herein, thereby disinheriting the respondents herein/plaintiffs, who are none other than the widow and the daughter of the Thanikachalam. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed an application in I.A. No. 317 of 2014 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement regarding the date of alleged last Will of Thanikachalam propounded by them.

(3.) It is their contention that while preparing the written statement by inadvertence the date of Will propounded by them came to be typed as 08.05.1989 instead of 13.05.1989. The said application was resisted by the respondents herein/plaintiffs contending that the plea of a typographical error having crept in was nothing but a reason invented by the petitioners herein for seeking the amendment.