Madras HC Sets Aside Son’s Addition To Partition Suit, Sends Applications Back For Review Of Whether Land Settled To Him Is Part Of Suit Property

The first respondent/plaintiff brought a partition suit seeking a 7/36th share in the suit properties.

While the plaintiff’s evidence was underway, she applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the seventh defendant’s son, relying on a settlement deed executed in his favour, and under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint.

The proposed amendment would replace the first item’s description as Survey No. 18/5A3A with Survey No. 18/5A3B and add boundaries.

The trial court allowed both applications, allowing the amendment solely because impleadment had been allowed.

The petitioners challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the basis for the High Court’s supervisory review of the impugned orders.

Order I Rule 10 CPC governs the addition of parties, while Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings.

The court’s reasoning required the trial court to consider the applications on their respective merits, including whether the proposed party’s interest concerned the suit property and whether the proposed changes to the plaint were justified.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The trial court had not determined whether the property settled on the proposed eighth defendant was part of the suit property, or whether Survey No. 18/5A3B formed part of Survey No. 18/5A3A.

Instead, it presumed the settlement property was included in the suit property.

It also allowed the amendment without a separate assessment, merely treating it as consequential to impleadment.

The High Court held that this failure to apply its mind made both orders perverse and warranted interference.

It left the merits of the applications open for fresh consideration.

It remitted both applications to the Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, for fresh consideration after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, directing that orders be passed in accordance with law within four weeks.

The trial court was also directed to dispose of the 2020 suit within six months.

The High Court clarified that its observations would not affect the fresh determination of the applications; there was no order as to costs.