The petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit in O.S.No.53 of 2013 for the relief of declaration as regards the Item Nos.I and II, permanent injunction as against the Item No.I and possession as regards the Item No.II of the suit properties.
2. The above said suit laid by the petitioner / plaintiff has been contested by the respondents / defendants and accordingly, after the filing of the written statement by the respondents / defendants, it is found that the parties proceeded with the trial of the suit and when the suit is at the part-heard stage, the petitioner / plaintiff has preferred an application in I.A.No.119 of 2017 seeking for the amendment of the plaint, on the footing that he had wrongly stated that Udaiyan, son of Rakkan, had died in the year 1950. But, he had died on 02.02.1956 and the said mistake had come to the knowledge of the petitioner / plaintiff only recently and the plaint has to be suitably amended and it is also stated that the death certificate of the said Udaiyan has also been filed and the said mistake is only a typical error and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants by way of the amendment. Further, it is also pleaded that the extent and the four boundaries of the suit properties have also to be amended and hence, the application.
3. The above said application of the petitioner / plaintiff had been seriously resisted by the respondents / defendants contending that it is false to state that Udaiyan, son of Rakkan, had died in the year 1950 and it is also falsely stated that he died on 02.02.1956 and the said mistake is only a typical error and the plaint is to be suitably amended. According to the respondents / defendants, Udaiyan had sold the suit properties to the ancestors of the respondents / defendants as per the sale deed, dated 25.06.1956, which fact is also known to the petitioner / plaintiff and in order to stifle the above case of the respondents / defendants, the petitioner / plaintiff has falsely pleaded that Udaiyan had died in the year 1950 without mentioning the date and month of his death in the plaint and though the respondents / defendants have filed the written statement adverting to all the above said facts on 14.09.2013 itself and thereafter, the trial had also commenced, the petitioner / plaintiff without any basis, had sought to amend the date of the death of Udaiyan as if the said fact had come to his knowledge only recently. It is the further case of the respondents / defendants that the death extract of Udaiyan relied upon by the petitioner / plaintiff marked as Ex.A7 is also a forged document created by the petitioner / plaintiff with the help of the Sub-Registrar concerned and according to the respondents / defendants, Udaiyan had died only on 26.08.1958 and the said death certificate has also been filed by the respondents / defendants along with their counter affidavit and hence, on the basis of the forged document, the petitioner / plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek for amendment as prayed for on the above lines. Further, it is the case of the respondents / defendants that as regards the plea of the amendment with reference to the description of the first item of the suit properties, no reason whatsoever has been given by the petitioner / plaintiff for the proposed amendment and hence, the said amendment is also liable to be rejected.
4. On a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties and the materials placed, it is found that the Court below has dismissed the application laid by the petitioner / plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
5. The petitioner / plaintiff by way of the amendment petition has sought for the amendment of the date of the death of Udaiyan, who according to the petitioner / plaintiff, had died on 02.02.1956, whereas, he has has wrongly stated that Udaiyan had died in the year 1950 in the plaint and as the necessary document with reference to the same has also been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, the said amendment being only a typical error has to be allowed. Further, according to the petitioner / plaintiff, the extent and the four boundaries of the first item of the suit properties also required to be amended.
6. The plea of amendment as regards the date of the death of Udaiyan is concerned, it is found that the respondents / defendants have specifically pleaded in their written statement that the same is not correct and only to stifle their case that their ancestors had purchased the suit properties from Udaiyan as per the sale deed, dated 25.06.1956 and knowing the said fact, the petitioner / plaintiff has deliberately averred that the Udaiyan died in the year 1950 and in such view of the matter, the petitioner / plaintiff's case that Udaiyan died in the year 1950 as stated in the plaint itself is not true and further, it is stated by the respondents / defendants that the present claim of the petitioner / plaintiff that Udaiyan had died on 02.02.1956 is also not borne by any reliable document and the document now projected by the petitioner / plaintiff for the said claim is a forged document and when the document had been obtained by the petitioner / plaintiff long back, his endeavour to amend the plaint on the basis of the same after the trial had commenced is not entitled for acceptance and therefore, the said amendment is liable to be rejected.
7. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is found that the respondents / defendants have, in their written statement filed on 14.09.2013, have stoutly disputed the claim of the petitioner / plaintiff that Udaiyan had died in the year 1950. Even thereafter, the petitioner / plaintiff had not endeavoured to ascertain the date of the death of Udaiyan. It is found that after the trial had commenced and based upon the death certificate of Udaiyan marked as Ex.A7, it is the claim of the petitioner / plaintiff that as Udaiyan had died only on 02.02.1956, the amendment is sought for with reference to the same. The respondents / defendants have disputed the genuineness of Ex.A7 as such. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Ex.A7 is a genuine document, when it is found that the said document had been obtained on 06.12.2013, nothing prevented the petitioner / plaintiff from moving the necessary application immediately. When it is found that the original date of the death of Udaiyan given in the plaint has been stoutly repudiated by the respondents / defendants, despite the above position, it is found that petitioner / plaintiff had not endeavoured to make any application with reference to the same and only after the trial had commenced, the petitioner / plaintiff has filed the present application as if the date of the death of Udaiyan had come to his knowledge recently. This claim of the petitioner / plaintiff is found to be a false one and therefore, the claim of the petitioner / plaintiff that he had come to know about the correct date of the death of Udaiyan only recently is unacceptable. On the other hand, even prior to the commencement of the trial in the year 2013 itself, the petitioner / plaintiff had been put on notice about the date of the death of Udaiyan by way of Ex.A7, even though the authenticity of the said document had not been admitted by the respondents / defendants. Be that as it may, when the petitioner / plaintiff had knowledge about the said document much earlier, as rightly found by the Court below, his application laid very belatedly for changing the date of the death of Udaiyan as such cannot be accepted. The case of the petitioner / plaintiff that the said mistake is only a typical error and it does not alter the basic structure of the case as such cannot be accepted. When it is found that the respondents / defendants claim title only through Udaiyan and when according to the petitioner / plaintiff Udaiyan died prior to the same either during 1950 or on 02.02.1956 as the case may be, it is found that the proposed amendment with reference to the same as determined by the Court below goes to the very root of the case and it cannot be in any manner characterized as an ordinary typical error, which had been crept in the plaint by way of inadvertence. In such view of the matter, the Court below rightly relying upon Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure finding that the proposed amendment had already come to the knowledge of the petitioners / plaintiff much earlier, refused the amendment accordingly and in such view of the matter, I am also not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below as it is found that the proposed amendment does not satisfy the requirement of the law as above stated.
8. The petitioner / plaintiff on his part claims the date of the death of Udaiyan as 02.02.1956, which document is impugned by the respondents / defendants. Per contra, the respondents / defendants have projected the death certificate of death certificate of Udaiyan, wherein his date of death is given as 26.08.1958, and therefore, when the basis of the amendment itself is shrouded in mystery, as above stated, it is not safe to entertain the amendment, particularly, when the petitioner / plaintiff has not come forward with the amendment application at the earliest opportunity after the knowing of the date of the death of Udaiyan as claimed by him.
9. As regards the second amendment sought for, it is found that no reason whatsoever at all has been given by the petitioner / plaintiff as to why he seeks the amendment with reference to the extent and description of the Item No.I of the suit properties. As rightly found by the Court below, the petitioner / plaintiff by way of the said amendment is introducing only a new property in the plaint without any basis and when the petitioner / plaintiff seeks to amend the extent and the four boundaries of the Item No.I of the suit properties without assigning any reason whatsoever and when if the same is entertained, it would amount to introducing a new property in the plaint for which there is no basis or cause of action stated in the plaint and when as already adverted as to why the petitioner / plaintiff seeks the said amendment is also not forthcoming, it is found that the petitioner / plaintiff has sought for the said amendment as a matter of right without any basis and hence, the same is found to be rightly negatived by the Court below and therefore, the same also does not warrant any interference.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and call for any interference from this Court.
11. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Munsif, Ramanathapuram.
.