PITCHAKARAN ALIAS BALAKRISHNAN Vs. PARVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in I. A. No. 1017 of 1995 in O. S. NO. 411 of 1987 refusing to allow an application filed by the plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure.

(2.) THE civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property situate at Perumbakkam village in survey No. 129/2a of an extent of 2. 55 acres. THE case of the plaintiff is that the property bearing Survey No. 129/2 of an extent of 5. 09 acres in the said village belonged to one Natesan and his brother Oomayan, both sons of one Mottayan. After the death of Oomayan, his two sons, Saman and Subramani sold their half share in the said property to the plaintiff's father Perumal by a sale deed dated 2. 7. 1972. THEy claimed that they are the owners of the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 2. 7. 1972. THE defendant in her written statement traced the title of the suit property and contended that one Karuppayee was the owner of 5. 09 acres in the survey No. 129/2, and Natesan and Oomayan purchased the property from the said Karuppayee, and there was a partition of the suit property between the brothers, and in the said partition the suit property was allotted to Natesan. According to the defendant, after the death of Natesan, who died intestate, his two daughters kamala and Muniammal became the owners of the property and they have partitioned the suit property into two equal shares. Muniammal was allotted 1. 25 acres and another property of 64 cents in Survey No. 130/3. According to the defendant, the extent given in the sale deed as regards survey No. 129/2 was a wrong measurement showing an extent of 67 cents instead of 1. 27 acres. According to the defendant, Munniammal sold the property to Kamala of an extent of 1. 25 acres and then Kamala became the owner of 2. 55 acres in her own right. According to the defendant, the balance of 2. 54 1/2 acres in S. No. 129/2 was purchased by one Peria Pillai Ammal from Karuppayee Ammal and the said Periya Pillai Ammal sold the property to one Mariyammal by a sale deed dated 17. 3. 1958. THE defendant states that Kamala sold the suit property to the defendant by a sale deed dated 19. 4. 1984, and she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) MR. Muthukumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the nature of the suit is not altered by virtue of the amendment; so also the cause of action is not altered by the proposed amendment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the extent of the property is alone reduced from 2. 55 acres to 1. 27 1/2 acres in the same survey number. It is also contended that the plaintiff still traces his title to the sale deed executed by Saman and Subramani.