A party cannot seek to amend the plaints of his opponent.

This revision is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari made in I.A.No.1141 of 1991 in O.S.No. 191 of 1992 dated 29.3.2001 dismissing the petition filed by the first Defendant under Section 151 of C.P.C. to amend the Plaint and to introduce petition mentioned properties in the Plaint schedule.

Parties are related as under:-

Defendants 2 to 4 are Co-sharers; each entitled to ¼ share in items 3 and 4.

2. O.S.No. 191 of 1992:- Case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and his elder brother D1 jointly purchased the item No.1 of the suit property by a Sale Deed dated 5.12.1973. Both the Plaintiff and the first Defendant constructed a terraced house in item No.1 - S.No.322/1. The Plaintiff is having half share in the house and the agricultural lands in S.Nos.322/1, 322/2 and half right in the Well and the electrical motor pump set thereon. Item No.2 is the ancestral property of the Plaintiff and the first Defendant. Plaintiff and D1 being the legal heirs to their father Peria Marappa Gounder, both of them are entitled to half share in item No.2. Defendants 2 to 4 are the co-sharers in suit items 3 and 4, which are also ancestral properties. Plaintiff and D1 are jointly entitled to ¼ share in items 3 and 4 of the suit properties. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to effect an amicable partition of the suit properties, but the Defendants refused to have amicable partition. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for partition claiming ½ share in the suit properties items 1 and 2 and 1/8 share in items 3 and 4.

3. The first Defendant filed the written statement contending that the Plaintiff has not been in possession and enjoyment of first and second items of suit properties. D1 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property item No.1 and the house thereon. Only D1 had built the house in S.No.322/1 and he is paying the house tax and electric consumption charges to the house. D1 is the elder brother, who earned money and educated the Plaintiff from out of the joint family funds. D1 had also purchased properties at Madras in the name of the Plaintiff with an understanding that the Plaintiff has to take and enjoy the properties at Madras and that the first Defendant has to enjoy all the properties at Tiruchengodu village. D1 borrowed money from various persons and built house at Madras in the name of the Plaintiff and D1 has half share in the properties at Madras. Similarly, D1 and the Plaintiff have also purchased properties in the name of Plaintiff's minor daughter Selvi. D1 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property items 1 and 2 and has perfected his title to the same by way of adverse possession. The Plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in items 1 and 2 of the suit property. The earlier suit filed by the Plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode was dismissed after full trial and the Plaintiff's claim was negatived. After the dismissal of that suit, the Plaintiff has come forward with the vexatious suit without disclosing the previous suit. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any partition and the reliefs claimed by him.

4. I.A.No.1141 of 1999:- D1 has filed this application under Section 151 of C.P.C. to direct the Plaintiff to implead the petition mentioned properties as the suit properties. According to the first Defendant, he and his brother-Plaintiff have purchased petition mentioned properties from out of income of the joint family funds. The first item of petition mentioned properties is purchased in the name of Saravanan, who is the son of the Plaintiff by registered Sale Deeds dated 18.1.1989 and 27.2.1989. similarly, second item of petition mentioned properties was purchased under two registered Sale Deeds in the name of the Respondent and another in the name of the Respondent's daughter by name Selvi, who was then aged about 12 years. As per the oral family arrangements, the first item of the petition mentioned propert