RAVI Vs. RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit in O.S.No.53 of 2013 for the relief of declaration as regards the Item Nos.I and II, permanent injunction as against the Item No.I and possession as regards the Item No.II of the suit properties.

(2.) The above said suit laid by the petitioner / plaintiff has been contested by the respondents / defendants and accordingly, after the filing of the written statement by the respondents / defendants, it is found that the parties proceeded with the trial of the suit and when the suit is at the part-heard stage, the petitioner / plaintiff has preferred an application in I.A.No.119 of 2017 seeking for the amendment of the plaint, on the footing that he had wrongly stated that Udaiyan, son of Rakkan, had died in the year 1950. But, he had died on 02.02.1956 and the said mistake had come to the knowledge of the petitioner / plaintiff only recently and the plaint has to be suitably amended and it is also stated that the death certificate of the said Udaiyan has also been filed and the said mistake is only a typical error and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants by way of the amendment. Further, it is also pleaded that the extent and the four boundaries of the suit properties have also to be amended and hence, the application.

(3.) The above said application of the petitioner / plaintiff had been seriously resisted by the respondents / defendants contending that it is false to state that Udaiyan, son of Rakkan, had died in the year 1950 and it is also falsely stated that he died on 02.02.1956 and the said mistake is only a typical error and the plaint is to be suitably amended. According to the respondents / defendants, Udaiyan had sold the suit properties to the ancestors of the respondents / defendants as per the sale deed, dated 25.06.1956, which fact is also known to the petitioner / plaintiff and in order to stifle the above case of the respondents / defendants, the petitioner / plaintiff has falsely pleaded that Udaiyan had died in the year 1950 without mentioning the date and month of his death in the plaint and though the respondents / defendants have filed the written statement adverting to all the above said facts on 14.09.2013 itself and thereafter, the trial had also commenced, the petitioner / plaintiff without any basis, had sought to amend the date of the death of Udaiyan as if the said fact had come to his knowledge only recently. It is the further case of the respondents / defendants that the death extract of Udaiyan relied upon by the petitioner / plaintiff marked as Ex.A7 is also a forged document created by the petitioner / plaintiff with the help of the Sub-Registrar concerned and according to the respondents / defendants, Udaiyan had died only on 26.08.1958 and the said death certificate has also been filed by the respondents / defendants along with their counter affidavit and hence, on the basis of the forged document, the petitioner / plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek for amendment as prayed for on the above lines. Further, it is the case of the respondents / defendants that as regards the plea of the amendment with reference to the description of the first item of the suit properties, no reason whatsoever has been given by the petitioner / plaintiff for the proposed amendment and hence, the said amendment is also liable to be rejected.