RAJAGOPAL vs VENKATESAN

Court
Madras High Court

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 06-10-2026
Pronounced on : 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
CRP No. 4412 of 2023
and
CMP.No. 26678 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA012034702023}
1. Rajagopal, S/o Late Kandasamy,
Res at Kadathikuttati Village,
Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
2. Ranganathan, S/o Late Kandasamy,
Res at Kadathikuttati Village,
Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
Rep by their Power Agent, Govindaraj
(on behalf of 1 and 2 petitioners)
S/o Balakrishnan, D.No.6/225,
Kamalanattham Village, Samisettipatti Post,
Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Venkatesan,
S/o Kuppadasan, Res. at Kadathikuttati Village,
Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal in IA.No. 215 of 2023 in
O.S.No. 75/2015 dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Ld District Munsif Court at
Dharmapuri and thereby allow the above CRP.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Sundarapandiyan
For Respondent(s): No Appearance
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
12.06.2023 passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, in I.A.No.215 of
2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2015.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. They instituted the suit
seeking a declaration that Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties
belong to them and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the
respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule properties.
3. The case of the petitioners is that their father, Kandasamy, purchased
the suit schedule properties along with other properties on 06.03.1978.
Subsequently, an oral partition took place among the family members of
Kandasamy, pursuant to which Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was
allotted to the first petitioner and Item No.2 was allotted to the second
petitioner. The remaining properties were allotted to the other legal heirs of
Kandasamy. Pursuant to the said partition, the petitioners took possession of
their respective portions and have been in possession and enjoyment of the
same. The respondent, who is a third party to the family, requested the
petitioners to sell the properties to him. Since the petitioners refused to do so,
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
the respondent allegedly obtained patta illegally and started interfering with
their possession. Hence, the petitioners instituted the suit.
4. The respondent filed a written statement contending that he had
purchased an extent of 0.60 cents in Survey No.598/1 in the year 1975. He
further contended that he had obtained patta for an extent of 1 acre and 13½
cents, including Meichal Poromboke land. According to the respondent, the
petitioners had encroached upon a portion of his land measuring 0.60 cents. On
these grounds, he sought dismissal of the suit.
5. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.215 of
2023 seeking amendment of the plaint with respect to the extents of Item Nos.1
and 2 of the suit schedule properties. They sought to reduce the extent of Item
No.1 to 15 cents and revise the extent of Item No.2 to 38.5 cents. The
petitioners contended that their father had originally purchased an extent of 2
acres and 60 cents in Survey No.598/1, out of the total extent of 3 acres and 20
cents, and that the remaining extent of 60 cents belonged to the respondent. At
the time of the oral partition, an extent of 1 acre and 6 cents in the said survey
number was allotted to the first petitioner, while an extent of 1 acre and 52 cents
was allotted to the second petitioner.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
6. According to the petitioners, while drafting the plaint, they had
inadvertently included the entire extent of the respective subdivisions instead of
restricting their claim to the portions actually belonging to them. In respect of
Survey No.598/1A2, they had incorrectly claimed the entire extent of 38 cents,
whereas the first petitioner was entitled only to 15 cents out of the total extent
of 32 cents, and the remaining 17 cents belonged to the respondent. Similarly, in
respect of Survey No.598/1B2, they had incorrectly claimed the entire extent of
81.5 cents, whereas the second petitioner was entitled only to 38.5 cents and the
remaining 44 cents belonged to the respondent. The petitioners contended that
these discrepancies were inadvertent mistakes that came to their knowledge
only when the matter was posted for trial. They further submitted that the
proposed amendment would neither introduce a new case nor cause any
prejudice to the respondent.
7. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the amendment
petition. He contended that the alleged mistakes were not inadvertent and that
the petitioners were aware of the extent of their land even in the year 2006. He
further submitted that two witnesses had already been examined on behalf of the
petitioners and D.W.1 had been examined on behalf of the respondent, and that
the matter had been posted for arguments. The respondent also relied upon the
deposition of P.W.2, who, during cross-examination, admitted that the
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
respondent was carrying on agricultural activities in Survey Nos.598/1A2 and
598/1B2 and was in possession of the suit schedule properties. According to the
respondent, although the extent of his purchase in 1975 had been incorrectly
stated as 60 cents instead of 1 acre and 13½ cents, he had obtained patta for the
larger extent. He further contended that the petitioners had purchased their
property in 1978 without properly verifying the measurements, despite the sale
deed referring to the respondent's land as the northern boundary. The respondent
relied upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner in support of his
contentions and sought dismissal of the amendment petition.
8. The learned Trial Judge, upon considering the rival submissions,
dismissed the amendment petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials
available on record.
10. Admittedly, the suit was instituted in the year 2015, claiming the
entire extents of the respective survey numbers. The trial has been completed,
and the suit has been posted for arguments. The principal contention of the
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
petitioners is that they came to know of the alleged mistakes in the description
and extent of the suit schedule properties only when the matter was posted for
trial. However, the original pleadings proceed on the basis that the entire
extents claimed in the plaint belong to the petitioners and that the respondent
has no right over any portion of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule
properties. By way of the proposed amendment, the petitioners now seek to
restrict their claim to smaller extents and stating that the remaining portions
belong to the respondent. Thus, the proposed amendment is not merely a
correction of a clerical or typographical error. It would materially alter the
petitioners' original stand regarding the extent of their ownership and the
respondent's rights over the disputed properties.
11. It is also relevant to note that, during the pendency of the suit, the
petitioners executed a general power of attorney deed in favour of one
Govindaraj authorising him to conduct the proceedings on their behalf. The
same extents of the properties as originally described in the plaint were
mentioned in the said deed. If the petitioners were entitled only to the reduced
extents now claimed, they had an opportunity to verify the measurements and
identify the alleged discrepancies while executing the general power of attorney
deed.
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
12. The learned Trial Judge also observed that the petitioners had framed
their pleadings and conducted the trial on the specific footing that the entire
extents of the properties belonged to them. The respondent participated in the
proceedings on the basis of those pleadings and contested the petitioners' claim
accordingly. At this advanced stage, permitting the proposed amendment would
substantially alter the nature of the dispute and introduce a position inconsistent
with the petitioners' original case.
13. It is well settled that courts should adopt a liberal approach while
considering applications for amendment of pleadings, particularly when such
amendments are sought before the commencement of trial. If it is post trial, the
Court shall verify the fact that in spite of the due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
14. In the present case, the petitioners have not satisfactorily explained
why the alleged discrepancies have not been identified before the
commencement of trial. Their own pleadings indicate that they became aware of
the alleged mistakes only when the matter was posted for trial. However, the
suit had been pending since 2015, and the general power of attorney deed
executed during pendency of the suit contains the same description and extents
of the properties as those originally stated in the plaint. These circumstances
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
indicate that the petitioners have failed to establish the requisite due diligence.
The proposed amendment, sought after the completion of trial and at the stage
when the suit was posted for arguments, cannot be permitted in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation for the delay. Therefore, the application appears to be
an afterthought. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, in
I.A.No.215 of 2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2015.
15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, and the order
dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, in
I.A.No.215 of 2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2015 is hereby confirmed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KKN
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
To
The District Munsif Court,
Dharmapuri.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 4412 of 2023
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
KKN
CRP No. 4412 of 2023
27-10-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:28:33 pm )