Amendments that fundamentally alter the nature of the suit or withdraw clear admissions should not be permitted under civil procedure rules.

JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.01.2020 in IA No. 884 of 2019 in OS No 42 of 2013 on the files of the Sub Court, Payyannur rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The status of the parties in this judgment will be as referred in the suit.

2. The plaintiff is the only daughter of late C. Kallyani Amma, an Upper Primary School teacher, the original defendant in the suit, born of her wedlock with V. Bhaskara Pilla, who was a teacher at Karivellur Manyaguru U.P. School. The plaintiff was born on 09.04.1969 and her father died after one month of her birth. After the death of Bhaskara Pilla, the defendant resided with one Pariyarathu Padmanabhan, who later committed suicide. The defendant sold the property that belonged to the plaintiff’s father, which was obtained through Partition Deed No. 4532/61 of Krishnapuram SRO, as well as the property purchased by him through Sale Deed No. 199/64 of Baranikavu SRO. The defendant transferred the rights in the properties belonging to Bhaskara Pilla, also acting in her capacity as the guardian of the then minor plaintiff. Using the sale proceeds from the said properties, along with the terminal benefits, bank deposits, and insurance amounts of Bhaskara Pilla, the defendant purchased the plaint schedule properties. In the year 1979, the defendant married Kamalaksha Poduval, a tailor, and three children were born from that wedlock. The plaintiff stayed with the defendant and Kamalaksha Poduval until she attained the age of 21. Later, the relationship became strained, and the plaintiff began residing with her relatives. The plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the plaint schedule properties, which the defendant has refused to acknowledge. In the year 2013, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule items 1 to 3 into two and to allot her one share.

3. The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, wherein it is stated that although the plaintiff is the only daughter born to the defendant in her wedlock with the deceased Bhaskara Pilla, the plaint schedule property was purchased using funds from the defendant’s own resources as well as the amounts provided by her father. It is further stated that the property obtained by Bhaskara Pilla under the partition deed was in the possession and enjoyment of his brother, and the same was transferred to him and his wife without any consideration. The plaint schedule Item No. 2 property was alienated by the defendant about 20 years ago, and the remaining properties exclusively belong to her and are in her possession and enjoyment. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant died on 10.09.2018. The respondents herein, the children born to the 1^st defendant through her relationship with Kamalaksha Poduval, were impleaded as additional defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, as per the order in I.A. No. 551/2018.

5. Subsequently, when the plaintiff applied for a legal heirship certificate, she came to know that there was no legal marriage between the deceased 1^st defendant and Kamalaksha Poduval. The plaintiff also learnt that, the 1^st defendant had sold 12 cents of property from the plaint schedule properties to her brother, C. Padmanabhan, through Sale Deed Nos. 4007/1999 and 4008/1999 of Payyannur SRO. It was further revealed that the 1^st defendant had availed of a loan from the Karivellur Service Co-operative Bank by mortgaging the remaining property. In light of these developments, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 884/2019 (Ext.P3) seeking amendment of the plaint. The following amendments were sought to be inco