01Facts
The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.163 of 2017, sought a declaration that a preliminary decree for partition in O.S.No.122 of 2009 was null and void and not binding on her.
pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 2, 6, 8She alleged that her relatives had obtained that decree without impleading her, although she was a legal heir entitled to a share in the property
pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 2, 6, 8After the defendants pleaded that a declaration alone was not maintainable without a claim for partition, the petitioner applied to amend her plaint to seek partition and separate possession, delete specified properties, and claim a 1/5 share.
p. 3 · ¶ 3The trial court dismissed the amendment application as belated and as introducing a new cause of action; the petitioner challenged that order in revision
p. 3 · ¶ 302Issues
i.Whether the trial court’s refusal to permit the plaintiff to amend her plaint to include partition and separate possession should be set aside
pp. 3, 5–6 · ¶ 3, 7–10ii.Whether allowing the proposed amendment would prejudice the defendants or otherwise be inappropriate despite the delay
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7–903Law Applied
The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent. It applies the principles that an amendment may be permitted where it enables comprehensive adjudication of the real controversy, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, and causes no prejudice to the opposing party
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–9The Court also considered the amendment in light of the petitioner’s consistent claim to a share and the defendants’ contention that declaratory relief alone was insufficient
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7–804Reasoning
Although the amendment application was filed belatedly, the defendants had themselves contended in their written statement that the plaintiff should have sought partition in addition to a declaration
p. 5 · ¶ 7The plaintiff had consistently asserted her status as an heir and entitlement to a share, and the amendment would add the consequential partition relief rather than require a separate suit
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8Since the defendants had not disputed her status as an heir, the Court found no prejudice in allowing the amendment; it would instead facilitate determination of the real dispute and avoid further proceedings
p. 6 · ¶ 905Holding
The High Court allowed the civil revision, set aside the trial court’s order, and allowed I.A.No.6 of 2023.
p. 6 · ¶ 10It directed the plaintiff to carry out the amendments within 14 days of receiving the order
p. 6 · ¶ 10As evidence had already been adduced in the 2017 suit, the trial court was directed to dispose of it within four months, with both parties to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 11–12No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 11–12Original Court PDF
ThangakanivsPothimuthu Nadar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
