The court emphasized the importance of allowing amendments that do not alter the nature and character of the suit and ruled that the question of limitation cannot be decided at the stage of the amendment application.

(Civil Revision Petition filed against the order dated 1.2.2006 in I.A.No: 22 of 2004 in O.S.No. 20 of 1999 by the learned District Munsif, Mettur.)

The revision petitioners are the defendants. The first respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way alienating or encumbering the suit property. According to the plaintiff, pending the suit, the first defendant had executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property and therefore it has become necessary for him to file the Interlocutory Application to amend the prayer in the suit seeking the relief of declaration on the ground that the settlement deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the 7th defendant is null and void. Further, according to the plaintiff he is having half right in the suit property as per the recitals in the partition deed dated 4.3.1978. Hence it is also necessary to include the relief of partition in the suit.

2. The said Interlocutory Application was resisted by the defendants contending that the 7th defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property as per the settlement deed dated 20.7.1998 executed by the first defendant and hence the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the same. The 7th defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After a lapse of 5 years the plaintiff has come forward with the present application and the amendment sought for by the plaintiff will change the entire character and nature of the suit.

3. The learned District Munsif, Mettur on a consideration of the avernments of the parties and also hearing the respective counsels appeared for them, allowed the amendments sought for by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the said order, the defendants have preferred this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff will change the very nature and character of the suit. Originally the suit was filed for bare injunction. Now by the amendment the suit is converted for declaration and for partition and separate possession on different cause of action which are distinct from each other. Further, the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiff is barred by Limitation under Art.59 of the Limitation Act. The settlement was executed on 20.7.1998 and this fact was made known to the plaintiff on 1.3.1999 wile filing the written statement. As per Art.50 of the Limitation Act, declaration with respect to an instrument has to be sought within three years from the fact became known to the plaintiff. Hence the suit ought to have been filed on or before 10.3.2002. However, the present I.A.,has been field nearly after 5 years. Further, on the earlier occasion the suit was dismissed for default and the plaintiff is not prosecuting the case diligently.

5. A perusal of the copy of the plaint would show that the plaintiff had instituted the suit for the relief of permanent injunction on the strength that he is also having half of the right over the suit property as per the partition deed dated 4.3.1978. Since the first defendant, legal heir of his brother Govindan, had executed a settlement deed in favour of the 7th defendant the plaintiff filed the I.A seeking the declaration and partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The fact of execution of the settlement deed is admitted by the first defendant in his written statement. Thus it is obvious the plaintiff had sought for suitable amendments to the plaint for effective and proper adjudication of the matter. In fact by the proposed amendment the petitioner is not introducing any new case. Already as per the partition deed he is having half of the right in the suit property. It is the well settled position of law that while deciding the amendment applications, unless there is a change in cause of action, change of nature and character of the suit, the courts should be very generous in a