(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to add the reliefs, after the prayer.)

1. This application is filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint by introducing an additional prayer and for payment of additional court fees.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

(a) The suit was originally filed for a declaration declaring that the assessment of property tax made in favour of the first defendant, by defendants 6 and 7 as null and void and consequently to direct the defendants 6 and 7 to effect transfer of the property tax assessment in the name of the plaintiff and for a direction to defendants 4 and 5 to issue patta in favour of the plaintiff, with respect to the suit property etc.

(b) The suit property originally belonged to the joint family, managed by P.N. Radhakrishnan and P.A. Ananthakrishnan. The aforesaid P.N. Radhakrishnan died intestate on 11.05.1955 and the said P.A. Ananthakrishnan became the kartha of the Hindu joint family. P.N. Radhakrishnan had a son P.R. Natarajakrishnan, who is the first defendant herein and his two sons, are the defendants 2 and 3. Likewise, the said P.A. Ananthakrishnan had died on 12.01.1999, who had a son by name P.A. Adhivarman, who had left behind a son, viz., P.A. Abhinand, the plaintiff herein and a daughter. Therefore, the suit property belong to all of them as a joint family property. While so, it is stated that for the sake of convenient enjoyment, the front portion of the suit property measuring an extent of 2355 sq.ft. along with an undivided common passage was allotted to the branch of P.A. Ananthakrishnan and the property bearing Door No.174 measuring an extent of 3089 sq.ft., which is a rear portion with a common passage was allotted to P.N. Radhakrishnan. Accordingly, the parties are in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. The plaintiff, also claim to have obtained a release deed from his father and sister and thus becoming the sole and absolute owner in respect of the portion of the suit property allotted to their branch.

(c) The plaintiff had further stated that for the portion occupied by him, he had applied to effect transfer of property tax and patta in his name, which was objected to by the defendants 1 to 3. However, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had clandestinely transferred the name of the property tax assessment in his favour with respect to the portion for which, he is not the owner. As the property tax assessment was issued in the name of the first defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit declaring the same as void.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 had filed the written statement in the month of July 2014, alleging that the father of the first defendant, viz., P.N. Radhakrishnan had purchased the entire suit property with his own funds in the year 1941 and he was an assessee till his death in 1955. The defendants also had filed the documents with respect to the property tax, water tax and electricity receipts in the name of D1 since 2005, which was marked as Exs.D5 to D8.

5. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking to add the following reliefs after the prayer (a) in the plaint as (a)(i) and a(ii) and for payment of requisite Court fee:-

(i) for a declaration declaring that the documents, which were marked on the side of the defendants 1 to 3, is not binding on the plaintiff, as the alleged patta, i.e., the extract of permanent land register, which is marked as Ex.P1 is very clear that the plaint schedule property was allotted to the branch of P.A. Ananthakrishnan and the same was recognized by the plaint documents;

(ii) for a declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property together with the undivided common