After Alleged Shed Encroachment, Madras HC Lets Plaintiff Add Title And Possession Claims To 14-Year Injunction Suit

The petitioner had filed O.S. No. 329 of 2012 seeking a permanent injunction.

He alleged that, during the suit, the third defendant encroached on part of the property and erected a shed thereon on 9 May 2026.

The petitioner then sought to amend the plaint to add claims for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

The District Munsif dismissed the amendment application, citing delay and the alleged introduction of a new property into the suit schedule.

The petitioner challenged that dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendment of pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy; under the principles set out in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559, delay alone does not necessarily justify refusing an amendment, and the merits of the proposed pleadings ordinarily need not be decided at the amendment stage.

The Court also relied on Rengarajan v. Rajendran, C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No. 2136 of 2015, which permitted an amendment while preserving the defendants’ right to raise limitation and directed that the amendment would not relate back for limitation purposes.

The Court treated the alleged encroachment as a subsequent event said to have given rise to the need for declaratory and possessory reliefs, rather than as an unrelated cause of action.

It considered that the petitioner claimed the amendment concerned the same property as the original suit, while leaving the truth of the alleged encroachment, the identity of the disputed portion, and entitlement to relief for determination on the pleadings and evidence.

Accordingly, the trial court should not have rejected the application solely on delay or the asserted introduction of a new property without properly examining the amendment’s nature.

The defendants’ potential prejudice was addressed by allowing them to file an additional written statement and raise limitation and other permissible defences.

The Court did not decide whether the additional reliefs were ultimately maintainable or within limitation.

The petitioner was directed to amend the plaint within two weeks of receiving the order; the defendants were given one week thereafter to file an additional written statement.

The trial court was directed to frame any additional issues and dispose of the suit on its merits, without unnecessary adjournments, within three months of receiving the order.

The defendants retained the right to raise limitation and other legally permissible defences.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.