A SELVARANI Vs. R JEGADEESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner / plaintiff as against the order dismissing the application seeking amendment of plaint.

(2.) The revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.239 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, for declaration and permanent injunction. While so, the revision petitioner / plaintiff filed the present amendment petition contending that the defendants 1 and 2 are claiming right over the plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant temple on the basis of a gift deed executed by one Ponnuswamy Nadar and Kanagasabapathy, dated 29.11.1972, which was registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Edalakudi as Document No.3031/197 The revision petitioner further contended that the gift deed executed by the said donors in favour of the 3rd defendant temple was not acted upon and no proper and acceptable document has been produced to prove the alleged title and possession in favour of the said donors and also their predecessors in interest in respect of the plaint 'B' schedule property. If the gift deed dated 29.11.1972 is a genuine and valid document, mutation would have been made in the name of the 3rd defendant temple immediately after the execution of the gift deed, but only recently the mutation was made in connivance with the revenue officials.

(3.) The revision petitioner further contended that recently, on 21.07.2017 on perusal of the prior title deed namely, partition deed No.2905/1959, referred to in the above gift deed executed by the donors namely, Mr.Ponnusamy and Kanagasabapathy, he came to know about the fraud and misrepresentation committed by the donors. According to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, in the partition deed No.2905/1959 entered among Ponnuswamy Nadar, Periya Nadar and Nadachi Pillai, the name of donor Kanagasabapathy was not found and no property was allotted in favour of the said donor Kanagasabapathy. Therefore, it is clear that the abovesaid gift deed No.3031/1972, dated 19.11.1972, was executed by the donors fraudulently and got it registered by influencing the registering authority. Even the defendants have not produced any patta or other relevant records in respect of the plaint schedule 'B' property in support of their claim. Hence, the abovesaid gift deed, dated 29.11.1972, is a void document and will not confer any right in favour of the donee and hence, it cannot be enforceable under law. Therefore, the revision petitioner has filed the said amendment application seeking to add the relief of declaration declaring that the gift deed, dated 29.11.1972, bearing Document No.3031/1972 as null and void.