Umarani v. Alamelu Ammal (Died),2.S.Seethalakshmi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN C.R.P(MD).Nos.257 & 258 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD).No.1158 of 2022 C.R.P(MD).No.257 of 2022: Umarani ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs.

1.Alamelu Ammal(Died)

2.S.Seethalakshmi

3.V.Lakshmi

4.V.Kokila Jeyabal

5.S.Allirani

6.S.Pushpam

7.S.Kala

8.S.Selvaraj Subba rediyar ... Respondents 1 to 8/Respondents 1 to 8

9.V.Rajagopal

10.Minor.J.Bharath Nivas (Represented through his mother and natural guardian fourth respondent)

11.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District Collector, District Collectorate, Madurai.

12.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai. ...Respondents 9 to 12/Respondents/ Proposed Defendants 9 to 12 PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A. No. 47 of 2018 in O.S.No.354 of 2008 dated 26-10-2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti, by allowing the civil revision petition. For petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar For R2, R4 & R9 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R11 and R12 : Mr.G.Sivaraja For R1 : Died For R3, R6 & R8 : No Appearance

C.R.P(MD).No.258 of 2022: Umarani ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs.

1.Alamelu Ammal(Died)

2.S.Seethalakshmi

3.V.Lakshmi

4.V.Kokila Jeyabal

5.S.Allirani

6.S.Pushpam

7.S.Kala

8.S.Selvaraj Subba rediyar .. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A. No. 229 of 2017 in O.S.No.354 of 2008 dated 26-10-2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti, by allowing the civil revision petition. For petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar For R2 and R4 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R1 : Died For R3, R6, R7 & R8 : No Appearance COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner to set aside the impugned order passed by the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti, in I.A.Nos.47 & 229 of 2018 in O.S.No.354 of 2008 dated 26.10.2021.

2.The petitioner in both petitions are one and the same. The petitioner is the plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti in O.S.No.354 of 2008. The suit was initiated against the respondents 1 to 4 herein for a bare injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. After the suit was instituted, the first defendant died and therefore, the defendants 5 to 8 were impleaded as legal representatives of the first defendant (since deceased). The petitioner claims to have purchased the suit schedule property measuring on an extent of 7.5 cents of land from one Gurammal and Subba Reddi. However, there is discrepancy in the sketch.

3.It is informed that the trial has not commenced. It appears that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed earlier to give a report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner a report was also filed by the Advocate Commissioner on 31.03.2016, pursuant to which, the petitioner filed an application for impleading proposed parties as defendants 9, 10, 11 & 12. The 9th defendant is the son of the second defendant and the proposed 10th defendant is the son of the 4th defendant in the suit. The other two proposed defendants 11 & 12 are the District Collector and the Tahsildar.

4.In view of the report given by the Advocate Commissioner on

31.03.2016, the petitioner filed I.A.No.229 of 2018 for amending the plaint and filed I.A.No.47 of 2018 for impleading the proposed parties as defendants. The Trial Court has rejected both the applications by two separate orders dated 26.10.2021. Asfar as the prayer for amending the plaint is concerned, the Court has held as follows in I.A.No.229 of 2018:-

7.nkYk;> nkw;go g[y tiuglj;jpy; rh;nt vz;.108/5B6, 108/5B5, 108/5B1B, 108/5B1C Mfpa cl;gphpt[fspy; fl;Lg;gl;L tUtjhft[k; mJt[k;7-1/2 brz;l; tp];jPuzj;jpy; fl;Lg;gl;L tUtjhft[k;

Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;ssJ.

nkw;go

ePjpkd;w Mizahsh; mwpf;if;f;Fk; kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; fle;j

26.04.2012k; njjpapy; Ml;nrgiz bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ bjhpatUfpwJ. Mdhy; ,e;j eph; kDt[k; fle;j 04.07.2017 njjpapy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhf cs;sJ. Vdnt> jhth brhj;jhdJ K:d;W cl;gphpt[fspy; fl;Lg;gl;Ls;s tpgukhdJ ePjpkd;w Mizahsh; mwpf;if K:yk; 23.08.2011k; njjpapny kDjhuh;/thjpf;F bjhpa te;Js;sJ. Mnj nghy 30.10.2012k; njjpapy; jhf;fy; bra;j vjph;tHf;FiuapYk; moapw;fz;lthW Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. Moreover as per the Commissioner's Report and Surveyor's Report filed in the suit on 09.06.2011, the plaintiff has encroached in S.No.108/5B5(part) in an extent of 7 square meter and in 108/5B1C

(part) in an extent of 17 square meters respectively. The encroached portions are clearly shown by the surveyor in his report and plan. As such the vacant site in S.No.108/5B5 belonged to the son of the 2nd defendant, the vacant site in S.No.108/5B1B belonged to one minor Barath Niwas who is the son of 4th defendant and the vacant site in S.No. 108/5B1C belonged to the 4th defendant. Hence the respective owners of the property are about to take legal action against the plaintiff for her unlawful encroachments made by her in their absolute properties by way of making counter claim for mandatory injunction to remove the unlawful constructions and recovery of possession in this suit itself in due course. vdnt> 2011 kw;Wk; 2012 tUlj;jpnyna ePjpkd;w Mizahsh; mwpf;if kw;Wk; vjph;tHf;Fiuapy; nkw;go tptuq;fs; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s epiyapYk;> cldoahf tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; nfhhp jpUj;jy; kD jhf;fy; bra;ag;glhky; fhyjhkjkhf jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;lLs;s ,e;j eph; kDt[k; rl;lg;gonah> bghUz;ikgonah Vw;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;nw ,eePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. nkYk;> kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; Vw;fdnt jpUj;jy; kD ghpfhuk; bjhlh;ghf ,ilf;fhy kDf;fs; 308/2016 kw;Wk; IA.No.488/2017d;go kD jhf;fy; bra;J mJt[k; nfhg;gpw;F vLf;fg;gl;L> gpd;dPL kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; typa[Wj;jy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;w fhuzj;jhy; js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. nkYk;> ,J bjhlh;ghf ghprPyid bra;a[k; bghGJ> tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; bjhlh;ghf nkw;go tHf;F K:yk; Vw;gl;l njjpapypUe;njh my;yJ nkw;go tHf;FK:yk; bjhlh;ghd bghUz;ik gw;wpa tpguk; bjhpe;j njjpapypUe;njh my;yJ nkw;go tHf;F K:yk; bjhlh;ghd bghUz;ik gw;wpa tpguk; bjhpe;j njjpapypUe;njh 3 tUl fhyfl;lj;jpw;Fs; jpUj;jy; kD jhf;fy; bra;agl;oUf;f ntz;Lk; vd;gJ rl;l epiyg;ghlhFk;.'

5.Asfar as the prayer for impleading the proposed parties as defendants is concerned, the Court has held as follows in I.A.No.47 of 2018:- 7).,ujug;g[ thJiufspd;go tHf;F nfhg;g[fis ghprPyid bra;jjpy;> ,e;j eph; kDtpd;go> 9 Kjy; 12 vjph;kDjhuh;fs; kDjhuh;/thjp mry; tHf;fpy; nfhhpa ghpfhuj;jpw;F mtrpakhf kw;Wk; njitahd jug;gpdh;fs; vd;gij jPh;khdk; bra;a ntz;oaJ mtrpakhdjhFk;. kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; 9k; vjph;kDjhuh; bgahpy; jhth brhj;jpw;F ej;jk; gl;lh

Vw;gl;oUe;jjhf kDtpy; thJiuj;jpUe;jnghjpYk;> mJ bjhlh;ghf vt;tpj Mjut[fSk; kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy. mnj nghy; nkw;go 10k; vjph;kDjhuh; bgahpy; 2k; vjph;kDjhuh;/2k; gpjpthjpahy; jhdbrl;oy;bkz;l; vGjpf;bfhLj;j tpguk; kDjhuh;/thjp

tpy;yq;f

rhd;wpjH;

bgw;w

gpd;ng kDjhuh;/thjpapd;

ftdj;jpw;F

bjhpa

te;jjhf thJiuj;jpUe;jnghjpYk;> mjw;F Mjuthf nkw;to tpy;yq;f rhd;wpjH; vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy. nkYk; 9k; vjph;kDjhuh; bgahpy; ej;jk; gl;lh Vw;gl;ljhf thJiuj;jpUe;j nghjpYk;> mJ bjhlh;ghf mjid Ml;nrgiz bra;J kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; vt;tpj tUtha;Jiw eltof;fia[k; vLf;ffg;gl;ljhf Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy. mnjnghy; vjph; kDjhuh;fs;/gpujpthjpfs; vjph;thjk; bra;Js;sJ nghy ,e;j eph; kDt[k; 9 Kjy; 12 vjph;kDjhuh;fis 9 Kjy; 12 gpujpthjpfshf mry; tHf;fpy; jug;gpdh;fshf nrh;f;f mDkjp nfhhp kDjhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy;> Vw;fdnt> jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l jpUj;jy; kDthd ,ilf;fhy kD vz;. 229/2017 kDtpy; nkw;go 9 Kjy; 12 vjph;kDjhuh;fis nkw;go kDtpy; jug;gpdh;fshf nrh;f;f mDkjp nfhhp vt;tpj kDt[k; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;gJ bjhpatUfpwJ. mnjnghy; 11> 12k; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jhth brhj;J bjhlh;ghf gl;lh khWjy; bjhlh;ghd mtrpakhd jhg;gpdh;fs; vd Fwpg;gpl;oUe;j nghjpYk;> nkw;go 11 kw;Wk; 12k; vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;F

gphpt[

80d;go

Kd; mwpt[g;g[ bfhLf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gJk;> mJ bjhlh;ghf Kd; mwptpg;g[ mDg;g[tjpypUe;J tpyf;F nfhhp chpikapay; tprhuiz eilKiwr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 80(2)d;go vt;tpj kDt[k; kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;gJ bjhpatUfpwJ. Vdnt> kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; 9 Kjy; 12 vjph;kDjhuh;fis mry; tHf;fpy; jug;gpdh;fshf nrh;g;gjw;F Mujthf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s tpy;yq;f rhd;wpjH; kw;Wk; 9k; vjph;kDjhuh;fis mry; kw;Wk; 9k; vjphkDjhuh; bgahpy; Vw;gl;l ej;jk; gl;lh Mfpait jhf;fy; bra;ag;glhj epiyapYk;> jhth brhj;J bjhlh;ghf tUtha;Jiwapy; Vw;gl;l gl;lh khWjy; bjhlh;ghf vt;tpj eltof;fifa[k; vLj;jjhf kDtpy; thJiuf;fhj epiyapYk;> 11 kw;Wk; 12 vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;F rl;lg;goahf bfhLf;fg;gl ntz;oa chpikapay; tprhuiz eilKiw rl;lg;gphpt[ 80(2)d;go Kd; mwptpg;g[ bfhLf;fg;glhj epiyapYk;> jpUj;jy; ghpfhuk; nfhhp jhf;fy; bra;j ,ilf;fhy kD vz;.229/2017 kDtpYk; ,k;kD ghpfhuk; nfhhp kD jhf;fy; bra;ag;glhf epiyapYk;> ,k;kD ghpfhuk; bghUz;ilg;gonah> rl;lg;gonah Vw;fj;jf;fJ my;y vd;nw ,eePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ.'

6.I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 2, 4 & 9 and the learned counsel for the respondents 11 & 12.

7.In my view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application for amending the plaint and the application filed for impleading the proposed parties as defendants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeeve Builers Private Limited and others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256, held that if the amendments, which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, are to be allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the other side.

8.The reasoning given for rejecting the application for amending the palint for impleading the proposed parties is also erroneous as Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will apply where relief is sought against a Government in which case a prior notice as is contemplated under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has to be issued. Therefore, the rejection of the application filed in I.A.Nos.47 and 229 of 2018 for impleading the proposed respondents as defendants 9 to 12 cannot be sustained and is liable to be interfered with.

9.Considering the above, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court by allowing I.A.No.47 of 2018 for impleading the proposed parties as defendants 9 to 12 and I.A.No.229 of 2018 for amending the description of the property. By allowing the applications for amending the description of the property and impleading the proposed parties as defendants, the Court is not giving any final determination. In the interest of justice to safeguard the rights of the parties are concerned, the impugned orders are set aside and accordingly, I.A.No.47 of 2018 and I.A.No.229 of 2018 stand allowed. The petitioner is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the plaint and also file clean copy. Liberty is given to the proposed parties to file their written statement. Thereafter, the Court shall frame issues and proceed with the case for trial and pass final judgment and decree. All the issues relating to limitation left to canvass at the time of trial.

10.With the above observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.04.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss To

1.The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti.

2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN,J. dss C.R.P(MD).Nos.257 and 258 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD).No.1158 of 2022

20.04.2023