Two Brothers’ Bid To Cut Land Claims After Trial Fails As Madras HC Upholds Refusal Over Unexplained Delay

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners could amend the plaint after completion of trial to reduce the claimed property extents.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioners had not justified the post-trial amendment or established the requisite due diligence.

It also directed

It dismissed the civil revision petition and confirmed the District Munsif’s order dismissing the amendment application.

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

01Facts

The petitioners, plaintiffs in a 2015 suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claimed the full extents described in Items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule.

pp. 2–5

They later applied to amend the plaint, reducing the claimed extents and stating that the remaining portions belonged to the respondent.

pp. 2–5

They attributed the original descriptions to inadvertent mistakes discovered when the matter was posted for trial.

pp. 2–5

The respondent opposed the amendment, noting that the suit had been tried and posted for arguments and disputing that the errors were inadvertent.

pp. 2–5

The District Munsif dismissed the application, and the petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–5, 8

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners could amend the plaint after completion of trial to reduce the claimed property extents.

pp. 5–6, 8

ii.Whether the petitioners demonstrated due diligence and satisfactorily explained why the proposed amendments were not sought before commencement of trial.

pp. 7–8

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principles governing amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

p. 7

Although courts generally adopt a liberal approach to amendments sought before trial, an amendment sought after commencement of trial may be allowed only where the applicant establishes that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

p. 7

The judgment cites no specific precedent.

p. 7

04Reasoning

The proposed changes were not merely clerical corrections: they reduced the petitioners’ claimed ownership and acknowledged the respondent’s rights over the balance portions, materially altering the original case.

p. 6

The petitioners did not adequately explain why they had failed to identify the alleged discrepancies earlier, despite the suit’s pendency since 2015 and the same property extents appearing in the power of attorney deed executed during the suit.

pp. 6–8

As the trial was complete and the suit stood posted for arguments, the Court found that due diligence had not been established and regarded the application as an afterthought.

p. 8