At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
For the Petitioner: A.V. Arun, Advocate. For the Respondents: B. Sekar, Advocate.
(Common Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 25.07.2017 made in I.A.Nos.1398 of 2016 and 351 of 2017 in O.S.Nos.294 of 2013 and 293 of 2013, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pudukottai.)Common Order1. This petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.Nos.1398 of 2016 and 351 of 2017 in O.S.Nos.294 of 2013 and 293 of 2013, dated 25.07.2017, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pudukottai.2. The petitioners in both C.R.Ps. are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The petitioners have filed suits in O.S.Nos. 294 of 2013 and 293 of 2013, for permanent injunction not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff unless under due process of law. Pending suits, the petitioners herein has filed an applications in I.A.Nos.1398 of 2016 and 351 of 2017 to strike off the plaint.3. A brief substance of the petitions in I.A.Nos.1398 of 2016 and 351 of 2017 is as follows:The petitioners have filed suits for permanent injunction with regard to B schedule property which is described as follows:“TAMIL”The petitioner purchased A schedule property on 26.06.1974 from one Mangai Atchi. Subsequently, he purchased B schedule property by way of oral purchase. Mangai Atchi sold the property to Natarajan and from him, the petitioners purchased the property and that the particulars mentioned in Paragraph no.4 of the plaint. The petitioner claimed adverse possession. Since the petitioners are not aware of the legal position and nothing in the plaint about adverse possession was stated and hence, the plaint has to be amended.4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent is as follows:It is wrong to state that the petitioners purchased B schedule property by way of oral purchase. The petitioners cannot claim adverse possession. Hence, the correction sought out by the petitioners will change the entire nature of the suit and the petition has to be dismissed.5. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif, Pudukottai dismissed the petitions. Against which, the petitioners have filed the Civil Revision Petitions.6. Since both the petitions are similar in nature, C.R.P.(MD)No.1863 of 2017 is taken as the lead case.7. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is entitled to amend the plaint before the commencement of the trial. Without properly analyzing the scope, the learned District Munsif made an observation that adverse possession should not be sought as a sword and can be sought only as a shield. The parties are at liberty to make alternative remedies in the plaint. The basis of petitioner's claim on is possession. Possession of the plaintiff was admitted by the first respondent in his written statement, he only claimed that he sold the property to the second respondent. The second respondent was also impleaded as the party. Whether the petitioner are in adverse possession has to be decided only after the trial.8. On the side of the petitioner, it is further stated that the vendor of the petitioner's vendor was in possession of B schedule property. Then, the vendor of the petitioner was in possession. Subsequently, the petitioner is in possession of B schedule property. This is only a pre-trial amendment. If needed, the respondents can file additional written statement. In support of his contention, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v. Mangit Kaur and others reported in 2019 8 SCC 729 is cited.9. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the pre-trial amendment should be liberally permitted by the trial Court. In support of his contention, a judgment passed by this Court in the case of O.P.Ravindran v. M.S.Subbaiah and D.S.Damodaran reported in 2021 (3) CTC 274 is cited.10. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner is trying to introduce a new case. There is no new cause of action. The original cause of action narrated by the petitioner is lapsed. In support of his contention, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another reported in 2014 1 SCC 669.11. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the character of the suit was not changed. The plaintiff has narrated that he purchased the A schedule property and he was given the possession of B schedule property. The petitioner is now elaborating the claim. Only possession was claimed by the petitioner. Now the petitioner seek for title through adverse possession.12. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner claim title through one Adaikammai Achi but A schedule property belong to one Chellaiah. Muthuaiah has executed a general power deed in favour of the respondents and the respondents divided the property as house sites and sold the same to many persons for valuable consideration. The second respondent is one such purchaser. The first respondent is the absolute owner of the property. The first respondent was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. The properties of the second respondent was lying fallow and one Adaikkamai and the petitioner colluded together and stealthily occupied the above said properties of the second respondent without her knowledge. The second respondent is having no right to continue in illegal occupation. The petitioner and her vendor Adaikkamai Achi are land grabbers and they have no valid title in the schedule property. Oral purchase of B schedule property by the petitioner is false and prayed the petition to be dismissed.13. The verification of the records reveals that the suit was filed for bare injunction with regard to B schedule property. The claim of the petitioner is that he purchased the B schedule property by way of an oral sale. Now the plaintiff wants to claim title through adverse possession. Originally the plaintiff claim right by way of sale a prayer of ownership through adverse possession is contradictory to
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
the original case. When filing a suit for adverse possession, the title of the other side should be admitted by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the original plaint is that title is by way of oral purchase. Now the plaintiff wants to change the entire nature of the case, which cannot be entertained.14. In the above circumstance, there is nothing sufficient enough to interfere in the order passed in I.A.Nos.1398 of 2016 and 351 of 2017 in O.S.Nos.294 of 2013 and 293 of 2013, dated 25.07.2017, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pudukottai. These Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.