Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. CHOCKALINGAM & T. MATHIVANAN
Soundarakanakambigai Ammal & Another
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Trichy
L.P.A. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2010 in M.P. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2010
Decided On :23-02-2010
Amendment - Property Dispute - H.R. & C.E. Act - [Section 101 of H.R. & C.E. Act] - The judgment discusses the amendment sought by the appellants to include properties originally found in A schedule to C schedule, which were exclusive to the plaintiffs. The court held that the properties in A schedule were endowed for Deepakattalai and could not be included in C schedule as the plaintiffs had not sought any amendment in the pleadings of the plaint. The delay in filing the amendment application and the lack of ignorance about the properties were also considered, leading to the dismissal of the applications.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought amendment of the schedule of property and reception of additional evidence in a property dispute case. The suit involved properties earmarked for Deepakattalai, another endowment, and properties exclusively belonging to the plaintiffs. The applications for amendment and additional evidence were dismissed by the learned single Judge, leading to the appeals before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the amendment application could not be allowed as the properties in A schedule were endowed for Deepakattalai and could not be included in C schedule as the plaintiffs had not sought any amendment in the pleadings of the plaint. The delay in filing the amendment application and the lack of ignorance about the properties were also considered, leading to the dismissal of the applications.
Issues: The issues involved the amendment of the schedule of property and the reception of additional evidence in a property dispute case.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the amendment application, the lack of ignorance about the properties, and the potential prejudice to the defendants were key factors in the court's decision to dismiss the applications.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed. No costs were awarded.
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
1. These two intra-court appeals challenge the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in C.M.P.Nos. 6000 and 6001 of 1998 whereby two applications filed by the respondents/plaintiffs before the trial Court one, seeking for amendment of the plaint and the other, seeking reception of additional documents as additional evidence were dismissed.
2. These appeals have arisen under the following circumstances. The plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 1982 laid a suit on the file Subordinate Judge, Villupuram for declaration of the first plaintiffs title as hereditary Kattalaidar of Deepakattalai in respect of the A schedule property and for injunction. The suit was actually contested by both the defendants. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved over the same, one of the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.747/85 and the other defendant filed another appeal in A.S.No.1012/86. Pending these two appeals, these two applications, C.M.P.Nos.6000 and 6001 of 1998 came to be filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking amendment of the schedule of property and for reception of additional evidence.
3. This Court feels it necessary to putforth the facts in the plaint in short.
The first plaintiffs great grandfather one Ponnusamy Pillai found a Trust known as Deepakattalai and endowed the properties set out in Schedule A for the same. The endowment is attached to Shri Adhi Thullianatheeswarar Temple. The great grandfather of the first plaintiff was a Trustee of the said Temple. After the death of the grand father, his son Arunachalam Pillai became the Trustee. On 2.6.1938, the Board framed a Scheme for the management of the temple and the scheme contained some restrictive provisions. Hence, Arunachalam Pillai filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 1943 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot. The District Court modified the Scheme by a decree dated 3.4.1944 whereby Arunachalam Pillai was declared to be the Managing Trustee of the Deepakkattalai and that the Kattalai properties should be vested with him and his heirs after him as hereditary trustees. It also provides for appointment of two non-hereditary trustees by the Board. Arunachalam Pillai died on 28.4.1962 leaving his wife Ramanujammal as his sole heir. Ramanujammal filed O.A.No.22 of 1963 to declare her as the Hereditary Trustee in respect of the Deepakattalai and the suit was also contested. While the matter stood thus, the other Trustees of the temple tried to remove her from the management of the property and the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., suo motu modified the Scheme and appointed the Executive Officer but possession was not actually taken. Ramanujammal questioned the appointment of the Executive officer before the higher authorities. While so, the Executive Officer filed a petition under section 101 of H.R. and C.E. Act for issuance of certificate to take possession of the properties. The said petition came to be dismissed for default. Therefore, the petition filed by Ramanujammal questioning the appointment of the Executive Officer must be deemed to have been cancelled since the said petition was also to be heard along with the petition filed by the Executive officer. Thereafter, another Executive Officer was appointed. He also took steps to take possession of the properties but he did not take possession of the properties. Ramanujammal filed a suit in O.S.No.321 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur for declaration of her title and for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 14.4.1974 and the appeal preferred by the Executive Officer against the same was dismissed. Certain charges were framed against her by the Department and the matter was pending enquiry. In the meanwhile, the revision filed by Ramanujammal before the Commissioner was dismissed. On the strength of the certificate, the Executive Officer moved the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for taking possession of the prop
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
