MUTHUPPANDIAN Vs. PERIATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil and in the suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff sought for declaration of title to a portion of the suit property. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.631 of 2012 seeking rectification of mistakes in the plaint schedules by way of amendment to read as Ramathal's house property of 15ft east-west in the place of Ramathal's house, now encroached upon by the defendants 1 & 2 by constructing a house and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, stating inter alia that the amendment was sought after a lapse of 5 years, which is not permissible under law. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that he was in enjoyment and possession of the 1st schedule property and he and the 3rd defendant inherited the property from his father Ivarasa Thevar. Thereafter, by way of oral agreement, there was a partition in respect of the 1st schedule property between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the petitioner had gone to Pondicherry for his work and remained absent for several years, the defendants 1 & 2 encroached upon the property of the plaintiff and constructed a house by obtaining an order of interim injunction in O.S.No.186 of 2004, which was not prevented by the 3rd defendant.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that while drafting the plaint, there was a mistake crept in the 1st and 2nd schedules to the extent indicated above, which necessitated the revision petitioner / plaintiff filed to file an petition for amending those lines in the schedules.