CHINNAMMAL Vs. MANICKAM ALIAS SELLAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the revision petitioners and the revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision arises from the order passed by the Trial Court in I. A. No. 64 of 2006 in O. S. No. 37 of 2005 filed by the plaintiffs seeking for an amendment to the plaint under order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the order dated 13. 02. 2006.

(2.) THE first defendant Manickam @ Sellapan is the husband of the first plaintiff Chinnammal. The second defendant in the suit is the father-in-law of the first plaintiff and father of the first defendant and the third defendant is the brother of the first defendant. There was a partition in the family of Periyanna gounder, namely, the second defendant on 12. 10. 1985 and there was no division by metes and bounds. The further case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant was married to the first plaintiff and they had no issues for 2 years and when the first plaintiff was conceived afterwards, at the advise of astrologers, the first defendant has compelled the first plaintiff to make abortion on certain surmises and it was in those circumstances the first plaintiff was compelled to leave away from the first defendant along with her son the second plaintiff who was born subsequently.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, there was the second partition in the family of Periyanna gounder on 29. 05. 2001 by which there was a division by metes and bounds and as per the said partition certain portions have been earmarked for the purpose of common use by way of easement. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and claiming 1/2 share to the second plaintiff in respect of item 1 to 3 of the suit properties and 1/6th share in respect of item 4 of the suit property, apart from the maintenance claimed against the first defendant.