N. Ranganathan vs D. Martin (Deceased) 1. K. Madhavan
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On:
Delivered on:
11-11-2026
05.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
C ivil R evision P etition No.4714 of 2025
& CMP.No.23829 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA012313262025}
N.Ranganathan
S/o. N.Natarajan,
3/290, Pachaiappan Street,
Palavakkam, Chennai-41.
...Petitioner
Vs
D. Martin (Deceased)
1.K.Madhavan
S/o. V.Kanniah,
No.31, Clemens Road,
Vepery, Chennai-7.
2.The Inspector General of
Registration, Santhome,
Chennai-4.
3.The Sub Registrar
Adyar, Chennai-20.
...Respondents
__________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against
the fair and decretal orders dated 12.9.2025 made in I.A. No.3 of
2025 in O.S.No.7434 of 2005 on the file of the Fourth Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner: Mr.P.Wilson Topaz for
M/s.A.S.Kailasam Associates
For Respondents: Mr.V.G. Suresh Kumar of R1
Mrs.D.Chitra Maragadham, GA
for R2 & R3
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
The Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated
12.9.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.7434 of 2005 on the
file of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (for short,
the Court below) wherein the application filed by the first
respondent/2nd plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) seeking for amendment of the plaint, came to
be allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
__________
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
petitioner/D1, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/2nd plaintiff and the learned Government Advocate
appearing for respondents 2 & 3.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available
on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. One Mr.D.Martin – the original plaintiff filed the said suit
seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the cancellation deed
dated 22.8.1996 executed by the petitioner/D1 was null and void
and not binding on him.
5. The cause of action given for filing the said suit was that a
sale deed was executed in favour of the said Mr.D.Martin – the
original plaintiff by both the petitioner/D1 as well as the first
respondent/D2 on 22.1.1996; and that thereafter, it was cancelled
unilaterally by the petitioner/D1 on 22.8.1996.
6. It has to be mentioned here that the first respondent/D2 in
the said suit was the power of attorney (PoA) agent of the
__________
Page 3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
petitioner/D1 and he executed a sale deed in the name of the said
Mr.D.Martin – original plaintiff on behalf of the petitioner/D1. The
original plaintiff – the said Mr.D.Martin subsequently executed a
settlement deed dated 30.10.2008 in favour of the first respondent/
D2.
7. Later, the first respondent/D2 filed W.P.No.12571 of 2010
questioning the unilateral cancellation of the sale deed and it was
dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated
24.9.2024. Aggrieved by that, he filed W.A.No.3584 of 2024 and it
was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 24.1.2025 in the following terms:
“6. Taking note of the fact that the suit in
O.S.No.7434 of 2005 is still pending and that the
civil court is competent to grant both
declarations and consequential reliefs, this Court
is of the view that the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge is liable to be modified.
Accordingly, the order of the learned Single
Judge made in W.P.No.12571 of 2010 dated
24.09.2024 is set aside and modified as follows:
i. The appellant is permitted to file another
application to transpose himself as the plaintiff
to prosecute the suit in O.S.No.7434 of 2005.
__________
Page 4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
ii. The 3rd respondent or anyone claiming
under him shall not resist such an application.
iii. The appellant shall be permitted to
prosecute the suit in O.S.No.7434 of 2005 as the
plaintiff until its logical end.
iv. The civil court is directed to dispose of
the suit in O.S.No.7434 of 2005 within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
v. It is open to both the appellant and the
respondents to raise all their factual and legal
contentions in the suit before the trial court. The
trial court shall consider the same and pass
orders uninfluenced by the observations.”
8. Pursuant to the above judgment, the first respondent/D2
filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking to transpose himself in the place of the
original plaintiff – the said Mr.D.Martin, who died in the meantime.
9. It has to be mentioned here that the said suit came to be
dismissed as abated on 24.11.2009 and it was restored only on
07.8.2025. Thereafter, the first respondent/D2 got himself
transposed as the second plaintiff in the said suit.
__________
Page 5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
10. The first respondent/D2 filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 under Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint in the
following manner :
“(i) In paragraph 10 of the plaint, the
following is to be added at the end of the second
paragraph:
The plaintiffs state that though the power
of attorney in favour of the 2nd plaintiff dated
24.11.1995, registered as Document No.1969 of
1995 in the office of the 3rd defendant,
empowered the 2nd plaintiff to deal with the
entire property owned by the 1st defendant
being the lands of an extent of 3 grounds and
1136 sq. ft., comprised in T.S.No.7, T.S.No.7/2 as
per patta, Block No.14, Adyar village, bearing
Door No.25/B, Ranjith Street, Kotturpuram,
Chennai, the 2nd plaintiff, as required by the 1st
defendant, had sold only a portion thereof, being
the lands of an extent of 2072 sq. ft., comprised
in T.S.No.7, T.S.No.7/2 as per patta, Block No.14,
Adyar village, bearing Door No.25/B, Ranjith
Street, Kotturpuram, Chennai to the 1st plaintiff,
which extent was commensurate to the value of
the sum due towards the borrowing effected, by
the 1st defendant to the 1st plaintiff.
(ii) In paragraph 13 of the plaint, the
following is to be added at the end of the said
paragraph:-
__________
Page 6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
The first plaintiff had, only in January
2005, thus come to know about the unilateral
cancellation of the deed of sale dated 22.1.1996,
executed by me, as the power of attorney agent
of the 1st defendant in favour of the deceased
1st plaintiff, registered as document number 287
of 1996 in the office of the 3rd defendant and
immediately filed the present suit to declare the
said unilateral cancellation as null and void.
The plaintiffs further state that the 3rd
defendant ought not to have accepted the said
deed of cancellation for registration and
registered it to bear Document No.4298 of 1996,
as it is against law. The 3rd defendant failed to
see that a document cancelling a sale deed must
be executed by both the parties to the deed of
sale, which is sought to be cancelled and the
deed of cancellation executed by the 1
defendant, the vendor alone, unilaterally
cancelling the deed of sale, is not a valid
document and cannot be registered, more so,
when the unilateral cancellation was being
effected without notice to the purchaser, the 1st
plaintiff.
(iii). Paragraph 18 of the plaint is to be
amended as follows, by substituting the existing
paragraph 18, with the following:-
Even on 7.1.2003, the first plaintiff had, at
the request of the 1st defendant, under the bona
__________
Page 7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
fide impression that the sale in his favour of a
portion of the property of an extent of 2072 sq.
ft. out of the total extent of 3 grounds and 1136
sq.ft., in lieu of the sums due to him by the 1st
defendant, was subsisting and valid, executed
and registered a receipt discharging the
mortgage, which receipt was registered as
Document No.23 of 2003 in the office of the 3rd
defendant. This was done at the request of the
1st defendant, to enable him to deal with the
remaining extent of the property. The 1st
defendant had suppressed the unilateral
cancellation executed by him and thus
defrauded the 1st plaintiff.
(iv). After the existing paragraph 22, the
following paragraph 22(a) is to be added to the
plaint:-
The plaintiffs further state that the
unilateral cancellation by the 1st defendant in
and under the Deed of Cancellation dated
22.8.1996, registered as Document No. 4298/
1996, of the sale deed dated 22.1.1996,
executed by the 1 plaintiff, as the power of*
attorney agent of the 1st defendant in favour of
the deceased 1st plaintiff, registered as
Document number 287 of 1996 in the office of
the 3rd defendant, is not valid and the same will
not bind the plaintiffs. Such unilateral
cancellation is wholly void and non est and does
__________
Page 8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
not operate to execute, assign, limit or
extinguish any right, title or interest in the
property.
The remedy, if any open to the 1st
defendant was only to have filed a suit to declare
the sale deed dated 22.1.1996, registered as
Document number 287 of 1996 in the office of
the 3rd defendant as invalid, as provided under
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Such suit is
also barred by time on date and hence the 1st
defendant can in no way either challenge the
sale deed or the title of the plaintiffs to the suit
property.
The 1st plaintiff had, subsequently, in and
by a deed of settlement dated 30.10.2008,
registered as Document No.1944 of 2008 in the
office of the Sub Registrar, Adyar, settled the
suit property in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. The
2nd plaintiff has thus become the full and
absolute owner of the property.”
11. The Court below, by the impugned order dated 12.9.2025,
allowed the said application and aggrieved by that, the above
revision has been filed before this Court.
12. The main ground that was urged on the side of the
__________
Page 9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
petitioner/D1 is that the transposed plaintiff had filed a written
statement in the said suit and supported the case of the original
nd
plaintiff; that however, after he was transposed as the 2 plaintiff,
he cannot be permitted to file an application for amendment of the
pleadings since he was not the original plaintiff and he was only
nd
transposed as the 2 plaintiff; and that therefore, he must prosecute
the said suit only based on the pleadings made by the original
plaintiff.
__________
Page 10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
13. In the case in hand, the transposed plaintiff was originally
the second defendant in the said suit. He acted as the PoA agent of
the petitioner/D1 and in that capacity, he had executed the sale
deed in favour of the original plaintiff and later, the sale deed came
to be cancelled by the petitioner/D1. As the second defendant in the
nd
said suit, the transposed plaintiff namely the 2 plaintiff filed the
written statement and in so far as he is concerned, that is the
pleading, which formed the basis for the case projected by him.
14. The transposed plaintiff adorned a new role claiming
ownership over the suit property by virtue of the settlement deed
dated 30.10.2008, which was stated to have been executed by the
original plaintiff during the pendency of the said suit. This Court
nd nd
allowed the 2 defendant to be transposed as the 2 plaintiff only
after considering the peculiar facts of the present case and more
particularly since the said Mr.D.Martin – the original plaintiff died.
15. The crucial question to be answered is as to whether the
nd
2 defendant, who had already pleaded by way of filing a written
nd
statement, can amend the plaint after being transposed as the 2
__________
Page 11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
plaintiff.
16. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would state that the Court can
allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner
and on such terms as may be just. Therefore, the language used
under Order VI Rule 17 makes it clear that only the concerned party,
who had pleaded by way of filing a plaint or a written statement, can
carry out the amendment in such pleadings filed by them. An
amendment cannot be permitted to be carried out by a defendant,
in a plaint or by the plaintiff, in a written statement.
17. I had an occasion to deal with this issue in
V.Senthilkumar Vs. Lakshmi [reported in 2026 (4) LW 368].
Relying upon the earlier judgments, I have held that only the
respective party to the pleadings can seek for amendment and that
an opposite party cannot be allowed to amend the pleadings filed by
the plaintiff.
18. In the case in hand, the transposed plaintiff has already
filed a written statement and he has supported the case of the
__________
Page 12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
original plaintiff. After transposition, at the best, he can only try to
sustain the stand taken in the plaint by the original plaintiff. If he is
allowed to amend the plaint, it will virtually lead to the same person
filing the plaint in his capacity as the transposed plaintiff and a
written statement in his earlier capacity as the second defendant. If
such amendments are allowed by a transposed plaintiff, it will lead
to anomalous consequences.
19. The Court below failed to consider this crucial legal issue
and has mechanically allowed the said application filed by the
transposed plaintiff for amendment of the pleadings. In the
considered view of this Court, the impugned order passed by the
Court below suffers from perversity warranting the interference of
this Court.
20. In the result, the above civil revision petition is allowed
and the impugned order dated 12.9.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2025
in O.S.No.7434 of 2005 on the file of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai is set aside. There shall be a direction to the
Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of
__________
Page 13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
O.S.No.7434 of 2005 within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the
connected CMP is closed.
11-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes
To
The Registrar,
City Civil Court, Chennai
RS
__________
Page 14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )
2026:MHC:4506
CRP.No.4714 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
CRP.No.4714 of 2025&
CMP.No.23829 of 2025
11-11-2026
__________
Page 15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:20:22 pm )