The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's failure to provide a valid explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment and the lack of evidence to support the substantial increase in claimed property extent.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.270 of 2004, which was originally filed as O.S.No.32 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, now transferred to the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur, is the petitioner herein. The legal representatives of one Krishnan, who was the original defendant in the said suit, are the respondents herein.

2. The petitioner has laid the said suit against one Krishnan for declaration of her title over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining him from erecting any superstructure over the suit property. In the said suit, the petitioner has taken out an application in I.A.No.1915 of 2010 for amendment of the pleadings. The amendment that has been sought for by the petitioner was in respect of the boundary and the measurement. The original claim of the petitioner was in respect of 6 cents and the present claim is of an extent of 25,620 sq.ft.

3. The reason that has been set out in the affidavit in support of the application for amendment was that when the matter was posted for trial on 2.11.2010, her Advocate visited the suit property on 23.10.2010 and found that the extent of the property is more than what is stated in the plaint. The learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that --

(a) when the suit has been filed in the year 1990 and the written statement was filed on 4.11.1991 by the deceased Krishnan pointing out that the petitioner has not given correct measurements and liner measurements and the extent of the property, the application for amendment was filed only in October, 2010. Thus, there is a considerable delay in filing the application for amendment.

(b) The amendment that has been sought for by the petitioner is barred by limitation since the petitioner who seeks for declaration of title and recovery of possession should have filed it within 12 years.

(c) If the application is entertained, it would cause injustice to the respondents and it would also take away the rights accrued to them.

The present civil revision petition is directed against the said order.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The suit was originally filed in the year 1990 and twice it was transferred and now, it is pending on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif at Alandur and renumbered as O.S.No.270 of 2004. The petitioner has sought for declaration of her title and right over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the original defendant from erecting any superstructure in the schedule mentioned property. The schedule of property has been described as 6 cents of land in Survey No.309 in Anakaputhur Village. It is the case of the petitioner in the plaint that originally her husband occupied the land in question in the year 1955. Later, she has acquired the same. Her further case was that on 14.2.1987, the Collector of Chengai Anna District at Kancheepuram has assigned 3 cents of land in Plot No.82-A in favour of her husband late Ramalingam and another 3 cents of land in Plot No.106-A in favour of one Govindasamy, who happened to be the brother of said Ramalingam. The said Govindasamy orally gifted away the property assigned in his favour, in favour the petitioners husband Ramalingam. The said Govindasamy died in the year 1976. After the death of the said Govindasamy, the petitioners husband Ramalingam continued to enjoy the whole property. After his death, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property.

6. While so, the petitioner filed an application for amendment. The particulars of the said amount as set out by her in the application is usefully extracted here under:-

"1. To add para-4-A, after para-No.4 in the plaint at page No.2. 4-A. Though as per the Revenue records the plaintiffs possession is recognized by assignments in favour of plaintiffs husband and his bro