Madras High Court Allows Amendment to Plaint, Sets Aside Trial Court's Dismissal to Avoid Multiplicity of Proceedings

A single‑judge bench of Justice R. Sakthivel heard a civil revision under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint in a partition and declaration suit. The petition questioned the Additional Subordinate Court, Tindivanam's August 16, 2022 order dismissing I.A. No.225 of 2018 in O.S. No.172 of 2016.

The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the trial court order and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their plaint to incorporate a contiguous 4 (approx. 4½) cents alleged to have been purchased by the first plaintiff and partitioned along with the 12 cents house site. The Court held that the proposed amendment raised issues that "can be decided only after trial" and that permitting it would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is admitted case of the parties that the 12 Cents house property in Item No.8 of Suit 'A' schedule properties was not covered in the Partition Deed dated June 19, 2008 as well as in the Rectification Deed dated October 24, 2008 which are under challenge. It is also an admitted fact that before the said Partition Deed, there was an oral partition qua the said house property, though the allotment thereunder is slightly under dispute.... Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the proposed amendment is not going to cause any prejudice to the defendants, on the other hand, it would help to adjudicate the matter once and for all. The Trial Court is not right in dismissing the Interlocutory Application." The Court directed that defendants may file additional written statements as necessary and imposed no order as to costs.

Background

The plaintiffs — the first plaintiff and his son — sued for declaration, partition and other reliefs, challenging a Partition Deed dated June 19, 2008 and a Rectification Deed dated October 24, 2008 as being procured by undue influence while the first plaintiff suffered mental illness. The suit schedule included Item No.8, a house site described as 12 cents, which the plaintiffs pleaded had been orally partitioned earlier and, by a subsequent gift settlement, partially transferred to the second plaintiff. During trial the plaintiffs filed I.A. No.225 of 2018 to amend the plaint to show that adjacent land (acquired by Sale Agreement in 1989 and a Sale Deed dated July 28, 1994) measuring about 4 to 4½ cents formed part of the same oral partition and should be described together (altering Item No.8 to 16¼ cents in the plaint).

Defendants opposed the amendment as belated, prejudicial and altering the character of the suit, and contended that no Sale Deed in favour of the first plaintiff existed. The trial court dismissed the amendment as belated and unnecessary after the suit had been filed three years earlier. On revision, the High Court examined the admitted factual matrix: that the 12 cents had not been included in the Partition Deed, that an oral partition was asserted, that a separate suit (O.S. No.15 of 2011) and an appeal (A.S. No.43 of 2014) existed in the record (with the appellate result noted on the e‑court portal), and that trial in O.S. No.172 had not commenced. The Court found that allowing the amendment would not prejudice defendants, would avoid multiplicity, and would assist final adjudication. The Court therefore allowed the civil revision, set aside the dismissal order dated August 16, 2022, permitted the amendment, and observed that defendants were "entitled to file additional written statement qua pleadings incorporated / modified by way of the amendment." There was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: CRP No.23 of 2023 Case Title: Devaraj & Anr. v. Natarajan & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. R. Saritha For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mohanraj For Respondents 2, 8 & 15: Mr. D. Senthilkumar