MARIYAL Vs. RANJITHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.1.2009 made in I.A. No. 21652 of 2008 in O.S. No. 3434 of 1999 on the file of the V. Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit in O.S. No. 3434 of 1999 has been filed for partition and separate possession of the schedule mentioned property by metes and bounds and for the allotment of 1/15th share out of the 1/3rd share to which her branch is entitled to in the suit property, ignoring the value of the constructions standing on the suit land (amended as per orders in I.A. No. 6928 of 2003 dated 24.9.2093) and for appointment of a Commissioner to make a division by metes and bounds and effect separate allotment to the plaintiff and also to ascertain the mesne profits for the l/5th share out of the l/3rd share in the suit property from the institution of the suit till the allotment of separate possession and for costs. The defendant has filed a written statement denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 21652 of 2008 in O.S. No. 3434 of 1999 to amend the pleadings in the manner as described in the accompanying application, i.e. schedule of property portion after the words S. No. omit '137/1' and add '147/1'. The respondents herein/defendants filed a counter objecting the same. After considering the arguments advanced on either side, the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while dismissing the interlocutory application, has held as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition. Non mentioning of the correct survey number is mere mistake and also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Peethani Suryanarayana and Another v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and Others (2009) 4 MLJ 589: (2009) 3 Law Weekly 75 6 and in the Case of Us ha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd and Others (2008) 3 MLJ 287 in support of his contention. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.