There is no harm in filing petition for amendment of pleadings belatedly.

M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff (In the cause title in this Civil revision Petition, the petitioners have been wrongly named as plaintiffs and the respondent has been named as defendant ).

( 2 ) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit properties as against the petitioners/defendants.

( 3 ) THE second petitioner/second defendant filed a written statement claiming that the suit properties were given to her by her grandfather by way of settlement deed. Her grandfather Krishna Gounder settled the property, which is admittedly ancestral, by execution of a settlement deed. At the time of execution of the said settlement deed, his first wifes son was alive. Since the settlement deed was executed during the life time of male member, the deed is void.

( 4 ) IN the above situation, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. to permit the respondent/ plaintiff to amend the plaint with reference to the above plea. The said petition was contested by the petitioners/defendants on the ground that the settlement deed is valid and the application to amend the plaint was filed in order to drag on the proceedings and hence, the application for amendment of the plaint was liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the above pleas, the trial Court considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and found that the said application was sustainable both in law and on facts and allowed the said application permitting for the amendment. The said order is under challenge before this Court in this Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants.

( 6 ) MR. Peppin Fernando, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while attacking the impugned order, would cite the following decisions : - (1) Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others; (2) Gurusamy Gounder v. Muthusamy gounder and another; and (3) Cinnapillal and others v. Angappa Udayar;and would contend that the belated application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. for amendment of the plaint would not be entertained.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr. P. B. Ramanujam, the learned counsel for the respondent, in justification of the impugned order, would submit that the reasonings given in the impugned order are perfectly valid and as such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 8 ) THERE is no dispute in the fact that the respondent filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit properties and that while filing the written statement, the second defendant claimed that the said properties were given to her by her grand father through a settlement deed dated 22. 8. 1930.

( 9 ) UNDER those circumstances, the main issue would be as to whether the respondent/ plaintiff would be entitled to the decree as prayed for, in the light of the settlement deed executed by late Krishna Gounder in favour of the second defendant on 22-8-1930.

( 10 ) ACCORDING to the respondent/plaintiff, even in the settlement deed, it was admitted that the said settlement deed was executed during the life time of a male legal heir through his first wife and under those circumstances, the said settlement is void and therefore, the plaint is sought to be amended by incorporating the above plea.

( 11 ) THE decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as referred to above, would not apply to the facts of the present case, since all the decisions would hold that the amendment of the plaint cannot be allowed, when the plaintiff raising inconsistent plea, which would likely to cause prejudice to the defendant.

( 12 ) BUT, in the instant case, the adding of some more factual details to substantiate the plea in the suit seeking for declaration of title over the suit properties would not be construed to be an inconsistent plea.

( 13 ) MOREOVER, in the counter filed before the trial Court, it was never stated that the said application for amendment is ill-motiv