N MURUGAN Vs. N DEIVANAYAGAM (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.71 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli and in the suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff sought for declaration of title to the suit property with the consequential relief of permanent injunction and other reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.108 of 2017 for amendment to include that the unilateral cancellation of relinquishment deed by the 1st defendant as well as subsequent sale executed by him in favour of the 2nd defendant are not valid and not binding and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, stating that the amendment was sought after a lapse of 14 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 and the 1st defendant are brothers and the suit property originally belonged to their father. The partition of properties was carried out among the family members on the basis of the decree dated 03.11985 made in O.S.No.166 of 1984 by the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1st defendant had executed a relinquishment deed dated 30.03.1992 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff on receipt of payment of Rs.50,000/- and the revenue documents were also challenged in the name of the petitioner. However, in the year 2003, the 1st defendant had unilaterally cancelled the relinquishment deed and executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that the unilateral cancellation and the subsequent sale to the 2nd defendant are not valid and on coming to know of the said act by the 1st defendant, the revision petitioner / plaintiff filed an amendment petition for inclusion of the said fact in the suit.