K. PAPA Vs. PERIYAKARUPASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.221 of 2014 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti and in the suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff sought for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.979 of 2017 seeking rectification of mistakes in the plaint schedule by way of amendment to read as "belonged to mother-in-law" in the place of "belonged to father-inlaw" and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, stating inter alia that the amendment was sought after a lapse of several 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 the plaint schedule property belonged to her father-in-law (so wrongly typed in the plaint) and after his demise, the property was in joint enjoyment of her husband and the brother of the husband. Subsequently, the property was orally partitioned among brothers and the brother of the husband had transferred his share to the husband of the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed dated 05.04.1995. It is the further case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner, out of love and affection, had executed an arrangement deed dated 31.10.2005 in her favour, pursuant to which, the revision petitioner had been paying taxes in her name.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that when the matter stood thus, the defendant attempted to trespass into her property on 23.08.2014 and attempted to plant crops thereon, aggrieved by which, the plaintiff had filed the suit, in which, she had wrongly mentioned the property as if it belonged to her father-in-law, whereas it actually belonged to her mother-in-law, which necessitated the revision petitioner / plaintiff to file an petition for amending those lines in the schedules.