ORDER: The revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.896 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Salem.

2. This civil revision petition is filed against the order passed in I.A.516 of 2000, which was filed for seeking amendment to the prayer in the plaint i.e., to cancel the sale deed dated 2.3.1952 executed by the father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3; to delete the prayer with regard to declaration and also to strike out the inconsistent pleas.

3. The trial Court allowed the said I.A. and passed a conditional order to deposit a sum of Rs.1,000 on or before 5.2.2001. Aggrieved over the said order, the revision petitioner/first defendant has filed this revision petition.

4. The plaintiffs, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A.No.516 of 2000 and in the counter filed by the first defendant/revision petitioner, it is stated that the first plaintiff is the mother and the second plaintiff is the sister of the 3rd plaintiff. Originally the suit was filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 to cancel the sale deed dated 2.3.1952 executed by the father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3; for declaration of their title to the suit property on the ground that the sale deed dated 2.3.1952 executed by their father was sham and nominal; even if it is true, they have perfected title by adverse possession; the first defendant has claimed right over the suit property 30 years after the Sale Deed and 15 years after the death of the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 on the basis of the impugned Sale Deed and demanded delivery of possession as per notice dated 7.12.1982. The suit was filed as informa pauperis. Originally, the 3rd plaintiff was impleaded as second defendant and during the pendency of the suit, he was transposed as 3rd plaintiff. Thereafter their Advocate also died and another senior advocate has been engaged. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Sale deed dated 2.3.1952 is sham and nominal and hence the relief of cancellation is not necessary.

5. The plaintiffs have alternatively prayed that they have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession assuming that the sale is true and valid. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that there are two adverse possession one perfected by the vendor viz., the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and another perfected by them on the death of their father and as such, two declaratory reliefs are not necessary. It is also stated that the sale deed was given birth to under undue influence of the first defendant and her husband and there is also a plea of agreement to re-convey. These are inconsisting with the original and main plea of sham and nominal. Therefore, the inconsistent pleas have to be deleted by amending the plaint. The proposed amendment does not give any new facts and no new relief is sought for. The nature of the case is not altered by the proposed amendment.

6. The petition was resisted in the counter that the suit was filed on 17.11.1983 by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as informa pauperis arraying the 3rd plaintiff as second defendant in the suit since he was employed in T.N.E.B. on the date of the suit. The proposed amendment of the plaint relating to Sale Deed dated 2.3.1952 is totally changing the cause of action and character of the suit. After the second defendant was transposed as 3rd plaintiff on 1.9.1994, he was examined as P.W.1 in the chief-examination and during the course of cross-examination, I.A.No.733 of 1997 has been filed to pay the Court-fee and I.A.No.111 of 1999 to amend the plaint. On the death of the counsel for the plaintiffs, who filed the suit, the Advocate, who has entered appearance to conduct the case on behalf of the plaintiffs has filed the amendment petition setting out a new case with regard to vital questions involved and cross-examined on that points. The first defendant has filed the written statement with reference to the sale deed dated 2.3.1952 and adverse possession as claimed by the plaintiffs. There is no necessity to amend the plaint at this stage w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document