R SRINIVASAN Vs. M THAMBUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in C. R. P. No. 1024 of 1991 (Thambusami) is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 184 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif's Court , Thiruthuraipoondi. Respondent in C. R. P. No. 1024 of 1991 (R. Srinivasan) is the defendant in the said suit and petitioner in c. R. P. No. 1833 of 1989. The plaintiff- Thambusami, filed the suit against the defendant- Srinivasan for recovery of possession of 0. 40 cents and a thatched house measuring 22' x 10' standing thereon and bearing Survey No. 129 situated in Vittukkatti Village, thiruthuraipoondi Sub-Registrary and Taluk and bounded on north, east, south and west by the properties of Thangavel, Ponnusami, Dhanagopal and Muthiah thevar. According to the plaintiff, the survey number was wrongly given in the plaint as R. S. No. 129 instead of Rs. No. 209/2a. However, there was no dispute regarding the identity of the property and four boundaries. The plaintiff's case is that the suit lands belongs to Sri Viswanathaswami temple and he is the tenant of the suit site under the temple from 1972 and he constructed the thatched house for his personal use and has been paying panchayat tax for the same. It is his further case that the defendant was his taram servant from 1979, that he got married, that as he had no house for his own use, on his request, the plaintiff permitted him to live in the suit house for six months on condition that he should vacate the same on demand without any objection, that after the expiry of six months, the defendant requested the plaintiff to allow him to continue for some more time, during which time he would construct a house of his own, that even after two years, the defendant did not surrender possession, and that even after the issue of notice dated 16. 7. 1981, the defendant did not surrender possession.

(2.) DEFENDANT resisted the suit stating that he is in occupation of the suit property with the permission from the temple and that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the same. He did not raise any dispute with regard to the survey number given in the schedule of property in the plaint or with regard to the identity of the same. He has only stated that the measurement and extent mentioned in the plaint is not correct.

(3.) MR. T. M. Hariharan, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the order of the trial court dismissing his application for amendment is vitiated by material irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction because it will lead to failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. It is well settled that a bona fide mistake with regard to survey number that had crept into the plaint can be rectified. It is also contended by him that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property and also with regard to four boundaries.